Elections
Aside from representation, electoral systems also aim to promote accountability, encourage political participation, allowing the public to choose their elected government and exert a degree of influence over policies by voting for those who promote policies you support. In the UK, we see 4 types of electoral systems :
1. Plurality electoral systems, where the elected representative receives the most votes, but this doesn't necessarily mean they got the majority of the votes. We see this in FPTP (first past the post) in general elections and English local elections. 2. Majoritarian electoral systems, where there is a majority required to win as opposed to first past the post. So essentially, the elected individual receives over half the votes. In the UK we see this in the Supplementary voting system (SV) where a simple majority is required, this was used for electing mayors, police and crime commissioners in the UK. 3. Proportional Representation, where the votes a party receives are used to allocate seats proportionately ie if a party receives 20% of the votes in an election, they are then allocated 20% of seats. This is used in the Northern Ireland Assembly and Scottish Local Council elections. 4. Mixed electoral system, where you use a mixture of the previously mentioned electoral systems. We see this in the UK with the AMS (additional members system) used in the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments.
When analysing and evaluating electoral systems, you should think about :
- Proportionality and a fair result. The proportionality of seats won should correspond to the overall percentage of the vote. - Vote value. All votes are equally important in determining the final outcome of an election; none are 'wasted'. There shouldn't be voter apathy. -Promoting participation and turnout. - A good party choice and representation with comprehensibility and transparency.
First Past The Post strengths :
1. Simplicity - voters simply choose one candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins. This makes it easy for voters to understand and therefore participate in the electoral process.
2. Strong single-party government - it tends to lead to strong single-party governments with clear mandates, for example, following Blair's 1997 landslide, and his huge majority of seats, he was able to implement his agenda without any coalition agreements or reliance on smaller parties for support, implementing significant social and constitutional changes. However, Theresa May's government, following the 2017 election, can be an example of FPTP not always creating strong governments, as she failed to secure a majority in Parliament, resulting in a hung Parliament. As a result, she went into a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP of Northern Ireland. Although on the whole, FPTP's stability is clear and can be attributed to its winner-takes-all nature.
3. Constituency representation - it ensures each geographic constituency is represented by a single MP who is accountable (direct link). For example, in 2017, Nick Clegg lost his seat in Sheffield Hallam as a response to the rise of tuition fees after entering a coalition with the Conservatives despite their pledge to lower them.
4. Discourage extreme parties - It tends to favour moderate parties with a broad appeal, as smaller fringe parties struggle to win seats, as they need widespread support. This helps prevent the rise of extremist radical parties in Parliament. For example, in 2019, despite receiving a significant share of the national vote extreme party BNP failed to win any seats. Although it could be argued that it may be useful to hear their views, as in the 2009 European Parliament elections, the BNP won nearly 6% of votes in the UK and 2 seats; however, once we got to hear their views in the next and subsequent elections, they lost their votes and seats.
Weaknesses :
1. Disproportionate representation - FPTP often leads to a discrepancy between the percentage of votes a party receives nationally and the number of seats it wins in Parliament, for example, 15 per cent of voters does not equal 15 seats. This can result in certain parties being overrepresented and underrepresented. For example, in the 2015 general election, UKIP got nearly 13% of the votes and 1 seat.
2. Regional imbalances - FPTP can exacerbate regional disparities by concentrating campaigns and efforts in swing or marginal constituencies and neglecting areas where parties are either strong or very weak.
3. Tactical voting - this is where voters strategically vote for a candidate they perceive as having a better chance of winning rather than their preferred candidate. This can distort the overall outcome and lead to strategic manipulation of the electoral system. For example, in Tatton, Martin Bell ran as an independent candidate against incumbent Conservative candidate Neil Hamilton. Hamilton was involved in a cash-for-questions scandal; therefore, despite Bell not being affiliated with a political party, he won due to widespread support from voters who wanted to oust Hamilton.
STV: In this system of voting, constituencies are multimember; you rank in order of preference. Candidates are elected if they receive a certain quota of votes. There are several rounds of voting, with the bottom candidate dropping out and votes for them being transferred to the second and third preferences.
The strengths of this system include proportional representation. One of the main advantages of the STV system is its ability to produce more proportionate outcomes compared with first past the post as under the system voters rank candidates in order of preference and seats are allocated based on the candidate share of the votes cast often leading to a more accurate reflection of the voters preferences and a fair distribution of seats for example in local government elections in Scotland ST has allowed for a more diverse representation of political parties including smaller parties and independence the Glasgow city Council elections STV has enabled parties like the Scottish green party and socialist party to win seats giving them a voice.
A second advantage is choice and representation ST offers voters a greater choice and wider range of candidates to choose from compared to 1st past the post the ranking allows for more nuanced and varied representation in elected bodies for example in Northern Ireland it is used for elections to the Northern Ireland assembly where voters can support candidates from different political parties so there is a wider representation for both nationalist and unionist parties. This is essential as in Northern Ireland there are strong divides between nationalist and unionist identities. This ensures both are adequately represented.
Weaknesses include: complexity, it can confuse some voters and make the accounting process more time-consuming and resource-intensive, the need to rank multiple candidates, and the intricacies of the transferable vote system can be challenging for some voters to understand on the other hand. Most people are already familiar with ranking choices in various aspects of life, such as ranking preferences for restaurants and movies. It is not a foreign concept and has successfully been adopted in Northern Ireland and in Scotland.
Another weakness is it is coalition building can lead to a coalition government or minority administration, especially in multiparty systems. Due to its proportional representative nature, this can result in political instability and difficulties in decision-making. If the party struggles to form a stable governing coalition, it may also undermine Parliamentary sovereignty
Strengths of the AMS system include proportional representation. It is more proportional than the first past the post as it combines single-member constituencies with additional regional and national seats allocated with proportional representation. This allows fair distribution of seats amongst different parties, ensuring smaller parties and independent candidates have a better chance of winning representation. For example, its use in the Scottish parliament has led to a more diverse and representative legislature with representation beyond the traditional dominance of the SNP and Scottish Labour Party this including Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Greens and Scottish Lib Dems, promoting inclusivity in the democratic process.
A second strength comes from the choice, as it provides voters with a greater choice and representation by allowing them to vote for both a constituency candidate and a party list. This ensures voters can support individual candidates in their local area while also expressing their preference for broader party platforms. For example, in the elections for the London assembly, voters can elect constituency members to represent their local area while also voting for a party list to determine the allocation of additional seats.
Weaknesses may include party list dynamics. The use of party lists in AMS can lead to concerns about party control over candidate selection and the representation of diverse viewpoints within parties. This may affect the perceived legitimacy of elected representatives and their ability to represent the interests of the constituents effectively.
When writing an essay on the electoral systems, you may want to mention coalitions. For example, you may want to ask yourself why does first pass of the post leads to fewer coalition governments? The answer would be due to a winner takes all system in first past the post where the candidates with the most votes in each constituency wins the seat, regardless of whether they have an outright majority as a result one party often wins a majority of seats in parliament, allowing them to form a single party majority government without the need of negotiation from other parties. You should ask yourself why this is a good thing. Firstly, stability without the need to negotiate and maintain coalition agreements, single-party governments can provide more stability. This is seen as crucial for making long-term decisions and can often act more decisively and effectively, not needing to navigate it. It also makes it easier to hold the government to account for its actions. For example, there is no ambiguity about which party is responsible for policy decisions, although if that is arguable, because in the LibDem conservative coalition, it was clear whose policy was whose, and Nick Clegg was punished by resigning as party leader.
You should also ask yourself whether coalition-building is a good thing. Firstly PR systems are more likely to get coalition government because they allocate allocate seats in proportion to vote shares meaning smaller parties get more representation leading to a more fragmented parliament with no single party winning an outright majority this is good because it ensures smaller parties get representation so we have a more diverse parliament coalition also require parties to work together to form policies and make decisions promoting consensus building although it might take longer it is arguably more worthwhile as better legislation would be made.
© Copyright mypoliticsnotes