ELECTORAL SYSTEMS;

3.1; ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

CATEGORIES OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS;

MAJORITARIAN PLURALITY PROPORTIONAL

- A majority of 50% + 1 to win - A plurality of votes = having more votes - A prop system allocates seats in
- May refer to no. of votes than anyone else, thus winning, but not a manner which reflects % of
needed to win a seat having overall majority votes gained by party
- Alt ; may refer to no.of seats - No majority required to win seat - No purely prop systems used in
needed to form gov - Likely to prod 2-party system UK, but no, of systems used that
- Likely to prod 2 party system are more prop than FPTP
- Likely to prod multiparty system

Used by; supplementary vote (sv) Used by; first past the post (FPTP) Used by; Additional member system
(AMS)
Single transferable vote (STV)

PLURALITY SYTEMS:
● FPTP ; used for UK general elections
● Every 5 yr as per fixed term parliament act
● However if ⅔ of mps vote - another election can happen
● How it works? - constituency level;
- UK divided into 650 constituencies - contain electorate of 70k people (varies)
- Each constituency repped by 1 seat held by single mp = single mem
constituencies
- Voters cast a single ballot
- Candidate w/most votes wins seat = representative
● How it works? - national level;
- Winning candidate in each constituency sent to P to be an MP
- Party w/majority MPs (326/650) = form gov
- If no majority - form coalition or form minority gov

CASE STUDY; Boundary commissions review;

● Boundaries of each constituency decided by boundary commissions
● 4 ; one for england, scot, NI and wales
● 2016-18 - BC carried out review of boundaries after P declared to reduce
number of MPs from 650-600
● Labour accused cons of ‘undemocratic power grabbing’ as studies suggested
new boundaries would have given cons a majority of seats if used in 2017
 EFFECTS OF FPTP;
● A two party system;
- All that is needed to win seat = gain more votes than the person who came
second - winner can gain seat w/ small proportion of vote
- Those who come 2nd,3rd,4th etc = gain nothing - known as ‘winner takes all
system’
- Favours parties which can command reasonable concentration of support
across large geo area - means labour and cons benefit
● ‘Winners bonus’
- Outcome tha FPTP tends to over reward the winning party in an election
- Eg, 1997, labour won 43% of national vote & 65% of the seats
- 2015 cons gained 37% of vote and 51% of seats
- Because; regardless of % of vote received, winner of each seat gains whole
seat
● Strong single party gov;
- FPTP usually returns a single party with majority of the seats - however
2010-2017 elections = unpredictable
● Safe seats and swing seats;
- ‘Winner takes all’ nature of FPTP - no.of constituencies become safe seats -
means party can almost guarantee victory in particular seat
- Some seats can be marginal/swing seats - voter loyalty within constituency =
split

2010 ; seats won ; Cons; 306 Labour; 258 Lib dem; 57 = Coalition gov
2015; seats won; Cons; 331 Labour; 232 SNP; 56 = Cons majority
2017; seats won; Cons; 318 Labour; 262 DUP; 10 = Confidence and Supply (cons +
DUP)
2019; seats won; Cons; 365 Labour; 203 SNP; 48 = Cons majority

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF FPTP;

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Simplicity; simple system to use for voters, prod quick Lack Of Voter Choice; resulting of 2 party system gives
result - voters know how it works and how it is counted = voters lack of real choice, leads to reduced turnout or
more voter turnout tactical voting

Strong gov; should prod strong single party gov able to Unequal vote value; uneven constituency sizes and
effectively lead country> compromising w/other party creation of safe/swing seats - vote of one person can be
more valuable than another
MP-Constituency Link; gives clear link betw each area and No majority Needed; to win in a constituency - only
a rep - provides effective local rep and clear accountability plurality is needed - means more people in total can vote
to constituents against winning candidate - undermines legitimacy and
waste votes of those who vote for losing candidate

Centrist Policies; 3rd parties struggling to gain success = Disproportionate vote; compared to % of vote received the
keeps extremist parties out of office 2 main parties are over repped - usually through the
winners bonus - while other parties = under repped

PROPORTIONAL ELECTORAL SYSTEMS;

ADDITIONAL MEMBER SYSTEM;

● Used for scot parliament and welsh assembly
● Only system in UK which gives voters 2 independent votes to cast - one for
voters local rep and one for regional rep
● How it works?
- Presented w/2 diff ballots
- Constituency vote = electing person - regional vote = electing party
● The constituency vote;
- Same way as FPTP vote ; 73 small member constituencies in scot - wales
=40
- Elects person based on plurality - those elected given seat in scot p/welsh a
● The regional vote;
- Proportional and designed to correct problems of FPTP
- Scot and wales divided into large multi mem constituencies- 8 in scot; with 7
elected mem - 5 in wales with 4 elected mem
- Each party running draws up list of candidates for each region - rank in order
they will be elected
- Second ballots are counted w/each region
- To decide who gets 1st seat - use d’hondt formula; no.of regional votes party
gained/ no.of seat party gained + 1
- Process repeated until all seats in region allocated to party - party gives seats
won to members from start of list downwards
● Demonstrates that parties that do not do well in first part have opportunity to
do well in 2nd part

ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES;

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Proportional result; second stage tries to fix problems of More complicated; Although voting process = simple, what
FPTP. more seats party gains in constituency vote = happens next IS NOT. Can put voters off as they feel vote
harder to gain regional seats as votes divided. - reduce will be mathematically manipulated - may reduce turnout
chance of wasted votes and ensure more parties = repped

Split-ticket voting; voters have more choice with 2 votes to Unlikely single party gov; more prop nature of AMS means
cast and they can choose to exercise two votes for diff single party gov = harder to achieve - means coalitions are
parties - encourages more parties to run likely - means govs = weaker and difficult to pass policies
they campaigned

A gov with broad popularity; if coalitions formed - great The first round; constituency vote conducted using FPTP -
no.of parties can have input on policy - supports greater carries same disad FPTP has
legitamacy of gov

Greater rep; all areas repped by constituency and regional Different types of reps; creates 2 tiers of reps, constituency
reps - more chance for voters that someone who shares and regional - can cause tension and confusion for voters
their ideology reps them - increasing turnout? and blur accountablity

Party control; regional vote - party controls order of list of

candidates - voters only have choice to support list or not ;
gives excessive influence to party leadership

THE SINGLE TRANSFERRABLE VOTE (STV);

● Used for northern irish assembly - only system in uk that allows for ordinal
voting - allows voter to rank candidates based on preference
● How it works?
- NI divided into 18 multi mem regions - each elect 6 reps to sent to NIA
- Given ballot paper w/candidates running - may incl candidates running from
same party
- Number candidates ;1,2,3 etc
- Total no.of ballots in each region counted
- To win candidate needs to achieve ‘droop quota’ - then candidate auto given
a seat
- If seats remaining and no one achieved DQ - candidate w/fewest votes
eliminated and votes redistributed - cont till seats = full
- Votes = more of equal value and less incentive for voters to vote tactically
● Effects?
- Likely to result in multiparty system and prod coalition gov
- Highly proportional - hard for one party to gain majority - likelihood of
safeseats = sig reduced

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES;

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Proportional result; most proporitonal system used in the More complicated; although voting process = simple - what
UK - delivers result w/close correlation betw % of vote cast happens next is NOT - may reduce turnout
and % of seats gained - increases legitamacy
Voter choice; Voters have great degree of choice, between Unlikely single party gov; NI good friday agreement means
and within parties. there has to be coalition gov - even if not the case - prop
nature of STV means coalition = likely = weaker gov

Greater rep; voter likely to have someone elected who Constituency link; no elected reps and larger mem
shares same ideology as them constituencies - link between elected reps and local area =
weaker

MAJORITARIAN SYSTEMS;

SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE;
● 1998- london voted to have a mayor - SV is used to elect
● Every 4 years
● How it works?
- London = one large constituency
- Two columns - vote for 1st choice then 2nd choice
- First choice ballots counted - if majority then they are elected
- No majority all but 2 top candidates eliminated - 2nd preferences taken into
account then redistributed
- 2016 mayor elections - only 45% voter turnout - 400k didnt choose 2nd
preference
● The effects?
- Results in 2 party system and prod strong single party gov - london not good
eg, as it is only 1 constituency
- However it shows what would happen if SV used across the country

ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES;

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

MAJORITY RESULT: ensures winning TWO PARTY DOMINANCE: elimination of

candidate has clear majority - increases all but 2 candidates means 3rd parties
legitimacy whilst still keeping extremist unlikely to do well and result NOT prop -
parties out might encourage tactical use of 2nd
preference or discourage voter turnout

VOTER CHOICE: voters have more choice A FALSE MAJORITY: winning candidate
than in FPTP - know they can vote for might not have true majority - as in 2nd
smaller party w/first preference but still use round anyone w/ no preference or whose
second choice to vote for larger party to 2nd pref has been eliminated is not counted
ensure vote not wasted

SIMPLE SYSTEM: unlike prop systems, SV WASTED VOTES: large no. of wasted
= simple and easy to understand ; in terms votes which have little or no impact on
of votes and how it is counted after result of the election
 FPTP COMPARED - KEY!

Overview/summary of each electoral system;

System Type Type of No.of Type of Voting for Likely Likely gov Used in
consistuency votes vote resulting formed
party
system

FPTP Plurarlity Single-Membe 1 Single Single person 2- party Single party UK general
r choice election

AMS Proportional Single & Multi 2 Single Vote 1 = Multi-party Coalition Scot parliament
mem choice person vote 2= and welsh
party assembly

STV Proportional Multi mem 1 Ordinal Single person Multi-party Coalition Northern irish
voting assembly

SV Majoritarian Single mem 1 1st & Single person 2-party Single party London mayor
2nd
choice

Overview of election results by different electoral systems;

FPTP SV STV AMS

UK general elections London mayor elections NI elections Scot elections

2010; coalition of cons and 2008; Boris J (cons) won 43% in 2016; coalition of DUP and 2011; SNP majority gov - 69
lib dem - 363 seats and 59% first round & 53% in second sonn fein - 66 seats w/53% seats with 45% of constituency
of national vote round of national vote vote and 44% of regional vote

2015; cons majority gov - 2012; Bj won 44% first round 2017- no coalition agreement 2016; SNP minority gov - 63
330 seats & 37% of national and 52% second round reached - largest parties = seats - 47% of constituency vote
vote DUP and sinn fein and 42% of regional vote

2017; cons minority gov; 2016; Sadiq khan - won 44% first
317 seats - 42% of national round and 57% second round
vote

2019; cons majority gov; 2021; sadiq khan 40% first round
365 seats - 43.6% of - 55.2% second round
national vote
IMPACT OF UK ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

IMPACT ON GOV AND TYPE OF GOV;

● Prop systems - led to greater no. of coalitions / minority govs
● However party of good friday agreement - ireland must form coalition
● Scot and wales have had minority and majority govs
● Wales and scot; both countries have pressed for further power to de devolved
to them
- For wales - meant gaining primary legislative powers and changing from a
‘conferred matters’ model to a ‘reserved matters’ model of gov
- For scot; meant pressure for independence and referendum = outcome
quelled pressure - however result of brexit = issue of independence reignited

IMPACT ON PARTIES AND PARTY SYSTEMS:

● No.of parties competing in elections and within gov has increased due to prop
system
● Nationalist and unionist parties have gained influence
● Cons - during thatcher performed poorly in scot - have been able to pick up
seats = 2nd largest party in scot as a result of AMS
● Could be argued small parties = over repped - 2007; snp won 47 seats -
labout =46 - snp formed coalition w/green party which had 2 seats = able to
prod minority gov
● Small parties have become ‘king makers’ - exercise power beyond which
electoral success suggests they shouldve had

IMPACT ON VOTERS AND VOTER CHOICE;

● Use of different electoral systems can help improve voter turnout as it
eliminates some of problems associated with FPTP
● However in many of devolved regions - voter turnout has been less than UK
elections
● Can be due to complexity of systems
● Could also be due to reduced imp placed on them in view of limited powers of
devolved bodies
SHOULD FPTP BE REPLACED FOR UK GENERAL ELECTIONS?

YES NO
Recent elections show FPTP not fulfilling Widely understood by the public - educated
traditional strengths - strong single party public more liekly to turn out to vote - improves
(coalition gov 2010 and 2017) legitimacy of resulting gov

Produces poor result - lack of proportionality Govs it has prod have largely been ‘strong and
doesnt fit w/principles of rep democracy - doesnt stable’ - 2010 coalition lasted for full term of
deliver MPs or gov with majority vote parliament

Gov it does deliver can be argued to lack Possible for smaller parties to do well - SNP in
legitimacy yet possess huge power; ‘elective 2015 - at same time can keep extremist parties
dictatorship’ - little opposition to gov out of office; UKIP gained 4m votes - only one
seat

Inequality in voter value across UK doesnt fit Clear choice for voters in 2-party system and
w/principle of ‘one person,one vote’ - not going likelihood of single party gov, makes it easter for
to be remedied by moving constituency voters to hold gov to account by simply voting
boundaries for other major party

Many votes = wasted - have little/no impact on Prop systems weaken or remove link betw geo
results - undermines legitimacy, encourages areas and people who rep them = key feature of
tactical voting and may discourage turnout - FPTP - link allows effective local rep of whole of
undermine democratic principles UK in P

2-party system reps lack of true competition in

UK elections - only accountability voters can
exercise = choose other major party ; not great
deal of choice