1.3 Electoral Reform

Functions of elections

Representation

Choosing gov

holding gov to account

participation

influence over policy

Voting systems criteria

equal votes

choice (pluralist)

rep-constituent link

strong gov

stable gov

accountable

Representation

equal votes

strong link

choice

Choosing gov

strong + stable

choice

accountable

holding gov to account

accountable

choice

rep-constituent link

participation

choice

equal votes

rep-constituent link

influence over policy

rep-constituent link

strong + stable gov

accountable

FPTP adv

swift

strong + stable

party unity

extremist exclusion

link

FPTP disadv

Aminority rule (pluralism)

limits choice

apathy (unequal votes, unproportional, winner’s bonus)

spoiler effect

FPTP efficacy debate

strong + stable gov

MP-constituent link (single member constituency)

accountable to electorate 5 years (FTPA)

\
coalition inc. prevalent

party unity over constituency

FTPA repealed

unequal votes

2 party tendency

% votes for Blair in 2005

35\.2% (lowest)

low turnout shows voter thinks system lacks legitimacy

Richmond Park 2017 % votes

Zac Goldsmith: 45.14%

Sarah Olney: 45.07%

elected on minority of a vote with such small margins

tendency to a 2-party system within constituencies too

tactical voting for LibDems (for Labour overall)

spoiler effect still takes a seat from Labour (so not effective either way)

example of the concentrated vote

2015: UKIP 3.9m votes and 1 seat

SNP: 56/59 seats with 50% vote

SV adv

no minority rule

broad support for winner e.g. Sadiq Khan

simple

independents can win e.g. 12 PC+Cs 2012

SV disadv

not proportional

tactical voting for top two candidates (hard)

SV debate

no minority rule

wider choice

\
majoritarian suppresses minority voice

apathy

tactical voting

has to be adapted to constituencies - not representative

AMS

candidate ballot: FPTP

party ballot: closed party list

seats allocated to D’Hondt formula proportions

Highland Islands FPTP v AMS

FPTP: SNP = 6, LibDems = 2

Party list additional members:

* Conservatives = 3
* Labour = 2
* LibDems = 1
* SNP = 1
* Green = 1

AMS pros

more proportional

keeps strength of FPTP

wider choice (split ticket)

no wasted votes (participation)

AMS Cons

2/3 FPTP

multi-member constituencies

‘second grade’ reps decreases legitimacy

closed list less choice

complex

still favours large parties

2007 Scottish Parliament elections

146k ballot papers voided

same day as STV local elections

STV

multiple candidates

5 seats/constituency

Droop formula quota

adapted to varied views

STV Pros

choice

suited to NI needs

most proportional

politicians appeal to wider community

STV Cons

not fully proportional

multi-member constituencies

not prevented Stormont shutdowns

still prone for conflict

What elections do

form gov

votes of candidate/party

general issues

regular

representative democracy

legally binding

What referenda do

make policy decisions

binary choice

specific

gov discretion

direct democracy

technically advisory

Why are referenda called?

constitutionally significant policy

external pressure

internal pressure

greater legitimacy

heal internal divisions

For referenda

participation

legitimacy

specific policy opinions heard

accountability + gov involvement

settle arguments

Electoral Commission ensures no bias

Referenda cons

threaten parliamentary sovereignty

lack expertise

oversimplify complex issues

distortion of facts/demagogues

exploited for political gain (2011)

low turnout; limited legitimacy

external factors influence results (2011)