Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Electoral systems - Coggle Diagram
Electoral systems
3.1 Different electoral systems
First past the post (FPTP)
Used in House of Commons (general elections) and local elections in England and Wales
Voters vote for a representative of a constituency
Voters have one vote only
The candidate with the most votes wins the constituency
Whichever party wins an overall majority of constituencies (326) can form a government
A
simply plurality system
- whoever gets the most votes of any candidate wins - the winner does not need a majority of votes
FPTP Advantages
Gives voters a clear choice between two parties with distinct programmes for government
Establishes the constituency link between MPs and voters - clear representation
Winning parties can fulfil their manifesto pledges without the need to compromise in a coalition
Allows for strong governments - governments can have a healthy majority and be more effective
Allows for stable governments - single-party governments are less likely to collapse, providing certainty and stability
Extremist parties are unlikely to get a foothold
FPTP Disadvantages
Is not proportional - the number of seats won by parties does not reflect the share of the vote they received (eg UKIP in 2015) - undemocratic
Creates lots of safe seats and therefore many wasted votes
Governments win power with only 35-40% of the vote, so are not supported by the majority of the electorate - arguably do not have a mandate
Leads to few checks and balances on government power, as government can easily pass legislation
Power is concentrated too narrowly, and small parties do not get the level of representation their support merits
Single Transferable Vote (STV)
Used for the Northern Ireland Assembly, local government in Northern Ireland and Scotland
Constituencies are multi-member
Candidates are ranked in order of preference
Candidates are elected if they receive a certain quota of votes, which is calculated as the total number of votes cast, divided by number of seats available and plus 1
Counting takes place in several rounds, the bottom candidate dropping out each time and votes for that candidate being transferred to second/third preferences
This is a
quota system
STV Advantages
Can be highly proportional - more accurate and representative, democratic
Close correlation between votes and seats
Creates competition for candidates from the same party, so they can be judged on their own individual strengths, not their party
Several representatives exist for people to choose between
STV Disadvantages
Not fully proportional, particularly where smaller multi-member constituencies are used
In large multi-member constituencies, the link between the member and the voters may be weak
A single-party, strong government is very unlikely
Could be divisive by creating competition between candidates from the same party
Power-sharing governments may bring rival groups together but are still prone to conflict eg Northern Ireland executive was suspended between 2002-07 due to a breakdown of trust
Additional Member System (AMS)
Used for Scottish and Welsh devolved governments
Electorate have two votes: one for a representative (for a constituency), one for a party (for a region)
Winner each for constituency is the candidate with the most number of votes
For the regional votes, the number of votes are divided by number of constituencies won plus 1 - party with the highest number wins the seat
For the rest of the seats, repeat this action but add any additional seats won
This is a
mixed system
-partly pluralist (like FPTP) but partly proportional (where seats won reflect the percentage of votes)
AMS Advantages
Top-up component introduces a proportional element, acting as a corrective to the FPTP part of the system
FPTP element maintains a strong link between the member and the constituency
Electors have wider choice than under FPTP, can vote for a 'split ticket' if they wish, using their constituency vote to support one party, and their top-up vote to support another
Possibility of single-party, strong government remains
AMS Disadvantages
Creates two different types of member - some with constituency responsibilities and some without, however there is little evidence that the second category is seen as having less legitimacy
A closed list system is used (party leadership ranks candidates in order on the list) - can use this power to limit the chances of dissident members of the party being elected
Smaller parties achieve less representation than under a fully proportional system
Supplementary Vote (SV)
Used for London mayoral elections
Voters rank candidates in order of first and second choice
First preferences are counted - if a candidate receives over 50%, they are elected
If not, all candidates drop out except for the top two, then second choice voters are added on to see who wins
A
majority system
- more proportional than FPTP, but not significantly
SV Advantages
Ensures broad support for the winner - Sadiq Khan, elected Mayor of London in 2016, has the largest personal mandate of any elected politician in British history
Simple and straightforward to use, particularly compared to AMS and STV
Has allowed some independent candidates to win - eg 12 out of 40 police and crime commissioners were independents in 2012 election
Fewer votes wasted than using FPTP
Encourages consensus campaigning, due to the focus on second preferences
SV Disadvantages
Not proportional as one individual is being elected to a single office
Winner does not need an absolute majority of the votes cast
Voters need to be able to identify the likely top two candidates in order to have influence over the outcome, this is not always clear
May encourage voters to support the main party candidate as their supplementary vote, rather than their preferred candidate
Case Study: Comparison between FPTP and STV
Proportional representation?
STV translates votes into seats more fairly, helping small parties that are underrepresented under FPTP - it does away with tactical voting as voters do not have to vote for the candidate who is most likely to block the candidate they dislike
Choice of candidates?
STV gives voters a wider choice, even allowing a choice between candidates from different factions of the same party in a multi-member constituency
However, it may encourage 'donkey voting' - voters may list candidates in rank order as stated on the ballot paper
Link between representative and constituency?
This is weaker under STV, particularly in underpopulated multi-member constituencies which are too large for their representatives to know well
However, the absence of safe seats under STV makes candidates work harder for votes, so that they have to address concerns across the whole of the constituency
FPTP encourages parties to focus on key marginal seats at the expense of others
Strong, effective and accountable government?
Votes take longer to count under STV, possibly delaying the formation of a government
STV is likely to produce a coalition - this may encourage a more consensual style of government, or it may lead to instability - coalitions pursue a programme agreed by politicians after the election, on which voters have not given a verdict
It may also result in a weak minority government - both can occur under FPTP, but are much less common
3.2 Referendums
In what circumstances
is a referendum held?
Legitimising a major government initiative - popularised since Blair government eg 1997 referendums on devolution for Scotland and Wales, and on the 1998 Good Friday Agreement
Forcing a government out of a disagreement - eg Harold Wilson held a referendum in 1975 because his party was split between pro and anti-European factions
Result of a deal between parties - David Cameron agreed to hold a vote on changing the electoral system for Westminster because this was a demand of the Lib Dems, part of the coalition agreement
In response to pressure to hold a referendum - Cameron initially did not want to hold an EU referendum, but later campaigned that he would hold a referendum if re-elected in 2015, to avoid losing Conservative voters to UKIP
The case for and against referendums in a representative democracy
For referendums
Involve the people directly in decision-making on important issues - in a democracy the electorate has the right to be consulted - the virtue of a referendum is that it enables a single issue to be isolated, so that an unambiguous popular verdict can be given
Referendums are a check on the UK's 'elective dictatorship' - the idea that executive dominance of the Commons gives it undue power, over which usually the electorate has control only once every five years - referendums between elections gives the people an opportunity to have their say more frequently, and prevents the government from becoming remote and unaccountable
Referendums settle arguments and entrench reforms by demonstrating clear public support for a change - eg demonstration of support for the Scottish parliament and Northern Ireland peace process has helped bring stability to new institutions created in these parts of the UK
Referendums raise voters' political awareness - the Scottish referendum in 2014 has been praised for giving an opportunity to air a wide range of issues related to independence - these included the likely impact of independence on the economy, future of the nuclear deterrent based on the River Clyde, and Scotland's relationship with the EU
The conduct of referendums has been independently supervised by the
Electoral Commission
since 2000 - this reduces the chances of skewed results due to unfair influence, because the expenditure of the competing sides is limited and wording of the referendum question is reviewed by an independent body
Against referendums
Referendums are a challenge to parliamentary sovereignty - ordinary people lack the expertise to make decisions on complex issues eg whether Britain should join the euro
If the arguments are not clearly explained to the public, popular participation may be low eg 2011 referendum on electoral reform, and the distorted arguments used in campaigns during 2016 EU referendum
Governments choose whether or not to call a referendum - Blair and Brown denied the electorate a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty 2007, which extended the process of European integration. Governments sometimes hold referendums for their own political purposes eg to defuse opposition, as with the 2011 electoral reform referendum
Low turnout has been the norm (with exceptions such as Scottish independence and Brexit), which limits the legitimacy of the decision eg turnout of the electoral reform referendum was 42%
Outcomes of referendums can be influenced by unrelated factors - they can be a protest against the current government eg defeat of the electoral reform referendum in 2011 was affected by the unpopularity of the Lib Dems
3.3 Electoral system analysis
Impact of electoral system on government
Coalition governments and new voting systems
A consequence of the adoption of proportional electoral systems is that coalition or minority governments have become much more common in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - this contrasts Westminster, which continues to largely experience single-party rule
The politics of compromise
Negotiations between political parties are rare at Westminster, but the norm in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
Minority governments are far more common in Scottish and Welsh devolved governments
When SNP was a minority, it had to win the support of other parties in order to pass legislation - in 2011, in order to win support for its budget, the administration had to make concessions to the Conservatives and Lib Dems
In contrast, at Westminster the main parties remain in an adversarial relationship, with one major party clearly playing the role of an alternative government
During the Blair-Brown era, safe Labour seats tended to have lower populations, as the revision of constituency boundaries had not kept pace with the movement of people away from inner cities to more affluent suburban and rural areas - it took fewer votes to return a Labour MP than a Conservative, giving Labour an electoral advantage
Policy-making in devolved governments
Under the Scottish Labour-Lib Dem coalition it was decided that university students in Scotland would not pay tuition fees and elderly people would receive free nursing care, prescriptions charges were also abolished in Scotland and Wales - none of these benefits were extended to people living in England, there is no longer a uniform welfare state across the UK
This can be attributed to use of AMS for the Scottish parliament - it ensured that, by entering into coalition with the centre-left Lib Dems, Scottish Labour did not follow the rightward drift of the party at Westminster in the New Labour era
Debates on why different electoral systems are used in the UK
Why has FPTP survived for Westminster elections?
The outcomes FPTP produces usually suit the interests of the two major parties, who have largely monopolised government since 1945 - Labour offered a referendum on FPTP before the 1997 election, but had no incentive to deliver this after winning a large independent majority under FPTP
Voters accept FPTP because it is familiar and easy to use, there is little desire to change it for an untried system - outcome of the 2011 referendum demonstrated the lack of support for change
Why was AMS adopted for Scottish and Welsh devolved elections and the Greater London Assembly?
AMS was chosen for Scottish and Welsh devolved elections as a compromise that would result in a broadly representative parliament, but without involving such a radical change as STV
It pacified the other parties by providing an element of proportionality but was also acceptable to Labour because it retained local representation (a feature of FPTP)
Labour expected AMS to enable it to play a part in Scottish government, which it did until SNP victory in 2007
AMS was adopted for the Greater London Assembly as it already had been selected for Scotland and Wales - it broadly reflected the views of the London population while retaining an element of geographical representation
Why was STV adopted for the Northern Ireland Assembly?
STV was chosen for Northern Ireland after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement because it is a highly proportional system, ensuring the broadest possible representation of different parties
With the background of conflict between unionists and nationalists, it was important to avoid single-party domination, which could have derailed the fragile peace process
STV was also already used in the Republic of Ireland
Why was SV used to choose elected mayors?
SV was chosen as it was simpler to use than AV
It was preferred because only the top two candidates, after first preferences had been counted, would make it to the final round - meaning candidates with little positive support would be less likely to win as they were a 'lowest common denominator' second or third choice
In this way the winner would have a clear mandate
Impact of different electoral systems
Effects on party representation
The electoral system used in 'second order' elections are not affected to the same degree as FPTP by the geographical distribution of votes - in the 2015 election, the only successful third parties were those like SNP and DUP, that campaigned in particular regions of the UK where their support is concentrated
Smaller parties have a vested interest in reforming the electoral system but little realistic chance of achieving it - the experience of coalition government at Westminster has not encouraged a pubic demand for reform
Effects on voter choice
AMS allows people two votes, for a constituency and a list candidate
Even more choice is offered by STV, where a preferential voting system allows voters to differentiate not only between political parties but also between candidates from the same party
STV involves fewer 'wasted' votes than FPTP, and offers greater potential to choose the winning candidate because of its proportional character
SV allows voters a first and second preference vote
All of these systems provide more choice than FPTP, under which voters can choose only one candidate - however if they live in a safe seat, even this has little chance of affecting the expected outcome