Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Electoral Systems - Coggle Diagram

- - - - it's simple (each member of the electorate can vote for one candidate)
        
        it tends to lead to strong governments (the system favours the two major parties, ensuring one party has a majority of seats in the Commons, often giving the government a clear mandate to rule)
        
        it promotes non-extremist policies and parties (a party has to have both concentrated and broad support across the country to gain notable numbers of seats, which encourages the centralisation of policy to appeal to the greatest number of voters)
    - - you don't need a majority of support to win a seat
        
        the result is often very un-proportional
        
        FPTP encourages 'safe seats' and thus wasted votes
  - - - Fairer to all parties / proportional: The overall result is fairer to all parties or more proportional. For example, the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections saw a maximum difference of 5% between the voted received and the MSPs returned.
        
        More choice of representative: Voters don't just rely on one MSP. They can seek help from an MSP who they feel will better represent their views or needs.
        
        Every vote counts: Although voters may find their chosen constituency candidate has little chance of winning, their second vote will help to elect a representative from the party of their choice.
        
        More choice: Voters have more choice when they go to vote. In the first vote they may choose a local representative from one party but in their second (list) vote they may switch to a different party.
        
        More views represented: It is possible that a greater number of parties will be represented in the government as a coalition is more likely.
    - - Complex: Elections are more complicated with two votes and in deciding which candidates are elected from the regional list.
        
        Multiple representatives: Having several MSPs to represent each voter is confusing for some voters.
        
        Coalitions more likely: Coalition or a minority government becomes more likely. This can slow down political decision-making. It can also give more power to smaller parties if the larger party in government depends on their support.
        
        Not most proportional system: Although AMS is a proportional representation system, it is not the most proportional of systems. For example, the SNP received around 44% of the vote in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election but returned 49% of MSPs (63 out of 129) while the Liberal Democrats received around 7% of the vote but only returned 5 MSPs (4%).
        
        Parties control regional lists: Second vote is used to select representatives from a list to make the overall result proportional. This is less democratic as political parties not voters decide the order of the candidates on the list.
    - - The Additional Member System uses FPTP to elect MPs in constituencies, although these are generally larger than under a purely FPTP system.
  - - - Ensuring minority representation: Since no vote goes to waste in the STV system, minority groups have a better chance of being represented.
        
        Eliminating tactical voting: Unlike 'first-past-the-post' systems, STV mitigates the issue of tactical voting. You vote according to your true preference rather than trying to manipulate the results.
        
        Promoting variety: With STV, multiple candidates can represent the same political party, encouraging diversity in representation and candidate choice.
    - - Confusion among voters: The preferential voting system may confuse some voters, especially those accustomed to 'one person, one vote' systems.
        
        Partial representation: Although the STV system promotes diversity, it can sometimes lead to a lack of clear mandate for a single party, resulting in coalition or minority governments.
        
        Complexity: The process of counting and re-allotting votes in STV can become complex and time-consuming, especially for larger elections.
  - - - The winning candidate must have secured wide-ranging support
        
        The London mayoral rules state that only second preference votes granted to one of the top two candidates on the first ballot are then filtered back through the system, so smaller or more extreme parties cannot boost their performance in this way and if a voter opts for an extreme party as a first preference and a mainstream candidate as a second preference, for example, it is only the second of these votes that will count.
    - - Turnout in the London mayoral elections has always fallen significantly below that of UK General Elections
        
        The seats vary in size and turnout can range widely between constituencies
        
        An absolute majority of votes cast is not required to win.
        
        SV quickly reduces a potentially large field of candidates down to a choice between two parties
        
        SV is not a proportional system so the problem of fairness and representation remains
    - - Supplementary Vote follows the same principle as the ‘Alternative Vote’ system, of which it is a variant, and can be used to elect representatives in single-member constituencies, one similarity it shares with FPTP.
        Although the system does ensure, through reallocation, a majority of over 50% for the winner, it is common that the winner will not have an absolute majority of first preferences and there is also a chance that an initial majority in the popular vote will be overturned, as can sometimes happen with the overall outcome under FPTP. Technically, the process of voting is different as two votes are cast, although there is a similarity in that each party may only propose one candidate, and the voter has no say over the selection of these candidates. As with FPTP, a large number of parties do stand for election under this system but there is a similar bias towards the larger parties and only these candidates have a realistic chance of success. Also, it is virtually impossible for a smaller party to win the election and the victor under SV is more likely to be a compromise candidate than under FPTP, which for some presents a transparency problem.
- - - - An effective government (much more likely to be achieved through simple plurality systems such as FPTP) which can get things done, has a strong mandate and can fulfil manifesto commitments
      - A representative government (more likely to be achieved through proportional governments) which may be a coalition, represents a broader percentage of the electorate and actually reflects how the population voted
  - - - The winner’s bonus, and bias towards large parties is reduced. In AMS, if a party wins a large number of constituency seats (and is therefore over-represented), this can be ‘corrected’ through the distribution of the party list seats.
        Minor parties are more likely to win representation, so leading to multi-party systems. These systems are also more likely to produce minority governments- that is, a party which may have a simple majority, but does not have an overall majority of seats. This, in turn, means that consensus politics is a likely outcome of proportional systems, as parties are aware that they are likely to have to work together in government. Coalitions are created through post-election discussions, which involve agreements on policy compromise. Frameworks for conducting the business of government between two (or more) parties also have to be set up).
    - - More proportional outcomes than FPTP are more likely. However, these systems are a long way from being proportional- for example, had the 2015 general election been run under such a system, the Conservatives and Labour combined would have only had one less seat. Counting voter’s second preferences may actually lead to less proportional outcomes, and it has been suggested that Labour would disproportionally benefit (due to the large numbers of Lib Dem voters who may put them as the second choice).
        SV was chosen to elect mayors because it was more simple to use than AV, and it would help give the winner a clear mandate.
- - - - Makes the government listen to the public more, as it is another way of voters communicating their thoughts other than just through elections
        
        Public are given direct control over policy-making, ensuring their views and interests are directly reflected in policy
        
        Ensures that major changes (e.g. constitutional change) have legitimacy, which is correct for any change that affects the governing of the country
        
        Helps to educate the public about important political questions, as they will be better-informed about key issues through referendum campaigns
        
        Provides a check on government power- governments don’t control the outcome
    - - Referendums provide a ‘snapshot’ of public opinion at one time, so may not be the most reliable method of choosing a policy direction
        
        May lead to ill-informed decisions, as the public may not know the specifics and consequences of a policy decision (unlike the government)
        
        Government could be strengthened- they decide the timing of referendums and can dominate the publicity campaign, meaning they could influence the result unfairly
        
        Governments can absolve themselves of responsibility, meaning they make themselves less accountable
        5.Parliament is weakened, as sovereignty is undermined, so decisions are not made on the basis of careful discussion, debate and scrutiny