Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Electoral systems analysis - Coggle Diagram
Electoral systems analysis
Single Transferable Vote (STV)
How the system works:
proportional system
council areas are divided into wards, each ward elect 4 or 5 councillors
voter ranks candidates in order of preference, can vote for as many as they wish, or only one
each candidate must achieve a % of the vote to have a seat
candidate must achieve a Droop quota in order to be elected, (total valid poll/(seats available +1)) +1
any surplus votes are recounted using other preferences
if there is no surplus and no one has reached the quota the candidate with the fewest notes is eliminated and their votes recounted using other preferences
repeated until all seats are allocated
Where is it used in the UK:
Northern Ireland Assembly
local elections in Northern Ireland and Scotland
Elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly 2017:
Democratic Unionist (DUP), 28.1% first preference votes, 28 seats, 31.1& share of seat
Sinn Fein, 27.9% first preference votes, 27 seats, 30% share of seats
Advantages:
elected people with broader representation are more likely to be both reflective of the electorate’s views and more responsive to them; parties are broad coalitions and can be markedly split on certain key issues, when only one-party person per constituency the representatives elected may not share the views of their electorate
no safe seats, candidates cannot be complacent and parties must campaign everywhere; not just in marginal seats
when voters can rank candidates, the most disliked candidate cannot win, as they are unlikely to pick up 2nd, 3rd and lower-preference votes
by encouraging candidates to seek first, as well as lower-preference votes, the impact of negative campaigning is significantly diminished
removes the need for tactical voting
highly proportional, every vote counts, encourages higher turnout
allows minor parties to gain elected representatives (but could play into extremism)
voters given a wide range of choice, party and candidate
parties can select a range of different candidates to ensure social representation (especially in NI due to secular divisions)
Disadvantages:
in sparsely populated areas, like the Scottish Highlands, STV could lead to enormous constituencies
process of counting the results takes longer, results cannot usually be declared on the same night as the vote takes place
can be prone to what has been termed ‘donkey voting’, voters vote for candidates in the order they appear on the ballot
voters only tend to meet candidates at election time, whereas people in the party know them much better (some argue a system that allows a political party to parachute its preferred candidates into safe seats is better than one that leaves the choice more in the hands of the voters)
in large multi-member constituencies, ballot papers can get rather large and potentially confusing
highly complex, most ordinary voters don’t understand its principles
as with any form of PR it weakens MP constituent link
unclear how vacant seats are filled at bi-elections
weak gov due to coalition
Implications of proportional systems such as AMS, STV:
winner’s bonus, and bias towards large parties is reduced e.g. AMS if overrepresented can be 'corrected' by distribution of party seats, 2011 Scottish Parliament elections this happened to Labour
minor parties are more likely to win representation, so leading to multi-party systems e.g. Green Party representation in Scottish Parliament, , Greater London Assembly and European Parliament, but until 2010 had no MPs in the House of Commons, since 2010 only 1
systems are also more likely to produce minority governments e.g. 2007-2011, SNP formed a minority government in Scottish Parliament, means consensus politics a likely outcome
AMS chosen for Scottish and Welsh devolved govs as a compromise between having a broadly representative assembly (satisfying smaller parties), but not being as radical as STV - Labour reckoned having AMS would ensure it played a significant role in regional gov
STV chosen for the Northern Ireland Assembly because of the importance of ensuring accurate, broad representation; avoiding single-party domination key due Good Friday Agreement power-sharing provision between unionists and nationalists
Additional Member System (AMS)
How it works:
proportional representation
mix between FPTP and Proportional list system
vote for a constituency MSP, majority wins, but also for a party to make sure proportional representation is fair; additional MSPs allocated to each region to make overall result fairer to all parties
Where is it used in the UK?
used to elect parliaments of Scotland & Wales and the London Assembly
devolves assembly elections
2021 London assembly election:
Labour 21 seats
Conservatives 9 seats
Green Party 3 seats
Liberal Democrats 2 seats
Advantages:
combines best features of FPTP and PR
more choice: voters can choose a local representative from one party, then in second vote, switch to another
fairer to all parties / proportional
more views represented: possible a greater number of parties will be represented by gov as a coalition is more likely
every vote counts: second vote will help a representative from the party of their choice - less votes wasted
votes are easy to count
Disadvantages:
multiple representatives: can be confusing for voters, puts off voting
parties control regional list: although the second vote is used to select representatives from a list to make the overall result proportional, the parties select the order of names
parties have significant control over closed list to elect additional members
creates 2 categories of representative, one with constituency duties and one without
smaller parties often under-represented as in many multi-member seats only a few representatives are elected
proportional outcomes are less likely where the number of additional members is low
First Past the Post (FPTP)
Info:
used for elections in HoC and local elections in England & Wales
works as a constituency system (650 in the UK)
constituencies are roughly equal size, reviewed by the electoral commission in England
each constituency returns a single candidate, winner takes all effect
Implications of using FPTP in the UK:
disproportionality, rarely see a link between number of votes won by parties & proportion of seats they gain, system focused on election of individual members not overall balance (landslide effect), e.g. Feb 1974, Labour formed a minority gov despite winning fewer votes than the Conservatives
FPTP favours larger parties, due to the ‘winner-takes-all’ effect, large parties more likely to have concentrations of support, enabling them to win more seats & less voting for smaller parties (the ‘wasted vote’ idea), so may end up voting tactically to try to prevent another candidate winning (tactical voting) – Labour and Conservatives over-represented, smaller parties disadvantaged e.g. Lib Dem 2010 23% of vote but 8% of seats
two party system, important feature of FPTP, using biases voters towards patties who have realistic chance of governing (Duverger's Law) 2017 89% MPs belong to Labour or Tory
proliferation of safe seats, (around 100-150 seats, out of 650), 2019 decided on around 50 marginal seats that were targeted
FPTP more likely to create single-party governments, 2010 coalition being the first for 70 years
winning party can gain many seats on the basis of a small shift in support (‘winner’s bonus’ idea), e.g. 1997 Labour won a majority of 178, just 43% of the vote
FPTP continues to be used because it suits the winning parties (unlikely to want to give up this advantage by changing the voting system) and AV referendum
Advantages:
votes simple to count, doesnt cost much to administer
not long to count all votes & work out winer, results can be declared in handful of hours after voting closes
voter clearly expresses a view on which party they think should form next gov
2 party system, tends to produce single-party Govs, not have to rely on support from other parties to pass legislation; strong & stable gov
parties have to appeal to the centre ground to win, encourages centrist policies - keeps out extremist parties
ballot papers simple to understand
clear outcome (winner)
responsible government
effective representation, single-member constituencies provide clear link between voters & their representative of 1 MP
Disadvantages:
majority of votes have no impact as votes cast for losing candidates or winning candidate about level needed to win seat (wasted votes)
severely restricts voter choice, if you support a party but not local candidate you dont have a means of saying so in ballot box
representatives can get elected on tiny amounts of public support as it does not matter how much they win, only they get more votes (South Belfast, SDLP candidate 2015, lowest winning vote share, 24.5%)
representation of minorities and women suffers from 'most broadly acceptable candidate syndrome', 'safest' looking candidate most likely to be offered a chance
relatively small constituency sizes, way boundaries drawn has an effect on result, encourages attempts at gerrymandering (2016 proposals to redraw boundaries)
multi-party culture, third parties with significant support disadvantaged
parties have to appeal to the centre ground to win, encourages centrist policies
electoral deserts (little/no representation)
votes are worth unequal value
encourages tactical voting
divides the country into 2 groups
Types of elections
Types of elections/votes in the UK:
general elections, usually every 5 years, MPs in constituency voted for by FPTP
local gov election, least every 4 years, England & Wales FPTP, Scotland & N.Ireland STV
Scottish parliament, MSPs elected by AMS, vote for constituency & wider region
Northern Ireland Assembly, MLAs elected by STV
Welsh parliament, MS elected by AMS, constituency MS & wider region MS
elected local mayors, elected by SV
mayor of London & London assembly, SV
police & crime commissioner, PCCs elected by SV, 41 in England & Wales
referendums, single issue vote, 1 choice between 2 options, votes counted by all of UK not constituency
Types of electoral system:
majoritarian (SV)
plurality (FPTP)
mixed (AMS)
proportional representation (STV)
Majoritarian:
single member constituencies
must secure an absolute majority
outcomes are not proportional
trends to produce a single party gov
Proportional representation:
multi member constituencies
tend to be more complicated (formulas)
much more proportional
tend to produce coalitions
Elections in a liberal democracy:
democratic theorists, bottom up approach, prioritise policy influence, accountability & participation
elite theorists, top down approach, allows elites to get on with task of governing, prioritise legitimacy & recruitment
Local elections:
tends to be more chance that minor parties & independent candidates win seats at local elections with many candidates winning around 30% of the vote
2018 turnout was 35%
Mayoral elections:
mayors elected for a 4 year temr
metro mayors responsible for setting out strategy for growing the city regions economy, certain power over issues e.g. transport
45.3% turnout in 2016
Devolved elections (Wales & Scotland):
every 5 years
results from these tend to be broadly more representative than Westminster
2016, 45.3% turnout
Northern Ireland:
every 5 years
produces most proportional result in the UK
however, can provide most unstable gov as it forces power sharing
turnout 64.8%
Why have an election?
representation
influence over policy
legitimacy
elite recruitment
choosing government
participation
accountability
education
Which electoral system is best?
Electoral reform:
Labour embraced electoral reform after the conservatives won 4 successive general elections 1979-1997
Blair gov introduced new electoral systems for the European Parliament and devolved institution elections, and established the Jenkins Commission to examine the case for electoral reform at Westminster
Jenkins recommended using alternative vote plus (AV+), a hybrid of the AMS and alternative vote systems, for general elections (Blair did not support the change)
AV is a majoritarian system in which voters rank their preferred candidates, if no candidate wins a majority, the lowest-placed candidate is eliminated and their second preferences are redistributed, continues until one candidate achieves a majority
Cameron agreed to hold a referendum on AV as part of the coalition agreement with Lib Dem
2011 referendum produced a 68% vote against AV
appeared to end the prospect of electoral reform for Westminster in the medium term, even though FPTP was becoming less effective in delivering its supposed benefits
2017 general election, the Lib Dem proposed using STV for general elections but neither the Conservatives nor Labour support replacement of FPTP
Which system is best?
no simple answer, depends upon which element of representative democracy or which task performed by an electoral system is viewed as most important - no consensus on this
a clear winner and a strong government, majoritarian and plurality systems are most appropriate, tend to produce single party gov(effective in implementing its manifesto commitments & more accountable as can easily identify party responsible & punish accordingly)
clear link between an elected representative and their constituents, electoral systems using single-member constituencies, e.g. FPTP and SV (FPTP, MPs have incentives to represent the interests of their geographical constituency e.g. support may include a ‘personal vote’ which results from their record or activities in office)
fairness to smaller parties and a higher proportionality in the way votes are translated into seats, proportional representation systems such as STV and the regional list are best; tend to produce coalition governments and promote cooperation between parties (gov often consists of parties that have collectively secured more than 50% of the vote)
voter choice, if straightforward choice between gov and opposition party is desired, then FPTP might be preferred, but if there is a choice from a range of parties then the closed regional list might be favoured, but if a choice between candidates from the same party is also viewed as desirable then STV is the optimal system
evidence that parties are more likely to select women and minority candidates under AMS and STV
comparative research shows that turnout is higher in general elections that use proportional representation
mixed systems such as AMS combine elects of plurality & proportional representation systems (may be best of both worlds e.g. Scotland, stable gov and representation of smaller parties) (Labour remained in power after every election, despite fluctuations in its vote share, never won a parliamentary majority, suggests electoral system not effective at rewarding or penalising governing parties)
choosing which electoral system is best might be regarded as a trade-off between different criteria, notably between strong accountable government and the representativeness of parliament
it is not simple, FPTP did not produce single-party Govs in 2010, 2015 or 2017, nor have the coalition and minority govs in the devolved assemblies been weak and unstable. PR and AMS systems can be designed to deny representation (and influence over government formation) to fringe parties, e.g. parties much achieve a threshold (5% of the vote) to get seats in the London Assembly.
Have AMS, SV, STV and regional list been effective in the UK?
Yes:
election results have been more proportional, votes cast into seats won more effectively
rise of multiparty politics is reflected in election outcomes, smaller parties winning seats and taking office
voters have a greater choice as votes for small parties are less likely to be wasted
minority and coalition governments in the devolved assemblies have been stable
new electoral systems have helped to produce more representative political systems.
voters have become more sophisticated, often engaging in split-ticket voting
No:
new systems have not always delivered highly proportional outcomes.
extremist parties have gained seats e.g. the British National Party (BNP) won 2 seats in the 2009 European Parliament elections
closed list element of AMS restricts voter choice and gives party bosses a significant say over the composition of the legislature
relationship between representatives and constituents has been weakened by using large multi-member constituencies or, in AMS, creating two classes of representative
turnout has been low
some voters appear confused by the different systems, evidenced in high number of spoiled ballot papers and wasted second preference votes
Impact on electoral systems in the UK
Impact of type of government:
minority and coalition govs are the norm in devolved assemblies but exception at Westminster
only one devolved election (2011 Scottish parliament election, SNP majority gov) delivered an outright winner
FPTP becoming less likely to deliver a majority gov at Westminster (2010 coalition, 2017 conservative minority gov)
last 3 UK general elections, only 2015 produced a majority gov, (if STV or a closed list PR system had been used, conservatives would have fallen short and UKIP have been coalition partner)
(2017, would have given Labour a better prospect of forming a minority government)
Impact on party representation:
elections to the devolved assemblies and European parliament better reflect the development of multiparty politics across the UK; parties such as UKIP & Green better represented than at Westminster because the number of seats better reflects the share of the vote
UK’s two-party system in failing health until 2017
‘effective number of electoral parties’ was close to 2 in the 1950s, number rose to almost 4 by 2015, fall back to 2.8 in 2017
‘effective number of parliamentary parties’ has increased from 2 to 2.5
FPTP acted as a life support machine for the two-party system, holding back but not halting the advance of multiparty politics
2015 general election was one of the most disproportionate in the post-war period e.g., UKIP won single seat yet 13% of vote, SNP won 95% of Scottish seats with 50% of the vote in Scotland etc
elections under STV and AMS are more proportional than Westminster elections, but produce results that reward larger parties and penalise smaller ones e.g. 2016 Welsh Assembly election notably disproportional - large number of constituency seats delivered to Labour by FPTP could not be corrected fully by the distribution of the smaller number of regional list seats
Impact on voter choice:
greater voter choice under AMS, SV & STV than FPTP (split-ticket voting & more complex voting behaviour)
electors recognise a vote for a minor party is less likely wasted under AMS and STV so smaller parties gain a higher profile and electors are more likely to vote for one in general elections too
other countries show turnout in general elections conducted under PR is higher than where FPTP used
low turnout is common in ‘second-order’ elections that don’t determine who forms the national government
turnout in elections to devolved institutions in the UK and the European Parliament has been significantly lower than for general elections, but turnout at general elections has declined since early 1990s and turnout at local elections at England is often poor
AMS, SV and STV give voters greater choice but some have found the different electoral systems complex and difficult to understand
design of ballot papers changed after 2007 Scottish Parliament elections; 146,000 ballots completed incorrectly
2016 London mayoral election, 382,000 electors did not use their second preference vote, 220,000 cast it for the same candidate as their first preference; another 1.5 million second preference votes were not for the top two candidates did not affect the result
Supplementary Voting (SV)
How the system works:
majoritarian system
you make a first choice vote and a second choice vote
If no candidate gets >50% of the first choice votes, all except the top 2 candidates are eliminated
If your first choice candidate is eliminated, and your second choice is for one of the top 2, your second choice is counted
Where is it used in the UK?
London & Local mayoral elections
Police and Crime commissioner elections
Mayor of London election results, 2016:
Sadiq Khan (Labour party), 44.2% first preference, 65.5% second preference, 56.9% final
Zac Goldsmith (Conservative party), 35% first preference, 34.5% second preference, 43.1% final
Advantages:
encourages politicians to appeal to a wider range of people, as they need a wider political base than in a FPTP system, making the gov elected more legitimate
less peoples votes are ‘wasted‘; most people have their voices heard
can help supporters of smaller parties, can put that as their first choice and a majority as their second
gives voters greater choice (voting ideologically and pragmatically)
gives winner strong mandate
doesn’t eliminate the two party system but lowers the likelihood of it
encourages consensus campaigning (2nd preference votes)
Disadvantages:
not proportional; issues with representation as a candidate could get the majority of votes and not win
an absolute majority of votes cast is not required to win and if SV was used to elect an assembly or legislature there would be no guarantee that the governing party would have >50% of the votes
reduces large field of candidates down to choice between 2 parties, can impact turnout too
tactical voting can occur
tend to produce the least unpopular candidate rather than the most popular
Implications of majority systems such as SV, AV:
SV chosen to elect mayors as more simple to use than AV, and help give the winner a clear mandate
more proportional outcomes than FPTP are more likely, but not proportional e.g. if 2015 general election run under such a system, Conservatives and Labour combined only one less seat - counting voter’s second preferences may actually lead to less proportional outcomes, suggested Labour would disproportionally benefit (large numbers of Lib Dem voters who may put them as the second choice)