1.3 Edexcel GCE Politics: UK electoral/voting systems

Definition of key terms and key facts about the UK electoral/voting systems topic.

The purpose of elections

• Choosing representatives

• Developing policy

• Ensuring accountability

• Legitimising political power

• Limiting political power

Choosing representatives

Voters choose a party or person to represent them based on their policies and performance.

Developing policy

Public opinion on a manifesto before or during an election can shape a party’s policies.

Ensuring accountability

Politicians can be judged on their performance every 4 or 5 years by the electorate.

Legitimising political power

Winning a free and fair election is usually seen to give politicians a mandate to rule.

Limiting political power

The existence of elections and opposition parties acts as a check on the ruling party.

Electoral/voting systems

The process by which votes cast are translated into elected officials or seats.

Different types of voting systems

• Plurality systems

• Majoritarian systems

• Proportional systems

• Hybrid voting systems

Plurality systems

A party or candidate must gain more votes than any other party to win the seat, but not a majority.

Examples of plurality systems

• First Past The Post (FPTP)

Majoritarian systems

A party or candidate must gain more than 50% of the vote to win the seat/form a government.

Examples of majoritarian systems

• Supplementary Vote (SV)

Proportional systems

Seats are allocated roughly in line with the percentage of votes gained by each party or candidate.

Examples of proportion systems

• Single Transferable Vote (STV))

Hybrid systems

Each constituency has more than one representative, each decided by a different type of system.

Examples of hybrid systems

• Additional Member System (AMS)

First Past The Post (FPTP)

• Plurality system used in UK general and local elections

• Single member constituencies

Boundary commissions

Bodies set up independently of the government, deciding the size of constituencies in each UK country.

2020 Parliamentary Constituencies Act

• This fixed the number of constituencies in the UK at 650

• It ensured that the proposals of boundary commissions didn’t require parliamentary approval

2023 Boundary Review

• The number of constituencies in Scotland and Wales was reduced (59 to 57 and 40 to 32)

• Increased the number of constituencies in England (533 to 543)

• Creation of new constituencies helped some MPs to win parliamentary seats

Example of how the creation of new constituencies helped some MPs win seats

• Green co-leader Carla Denyer in Bristol Central

By-elections

• Death, resignation, or criminal conviction of MP leaves a seat vacant in the Commons between elections

• It can increase or decrease a majority, and may indicate increasing or decreasing support before an election

Examples of by-elections

• Neil Parish, a Conservative, resigned in 2022 for watching X-rated material twice in the Commons

• His seat was won by the Liberal Democrat Richard Foord

Example of recent (2026) by-elections

• Andrew Gwynne, an independent following suspension from the Labour Party, stepped down for health reasons in Gorton and Denton

• His seat was won by Green Party candidate, Hannah Spencer

Local elections

• Decide local councillors using FPTP

• Constituencies broken up into wards

• Each ward elects one, two or three councillors, depending on its size

• Winning a ward requires a majority of ward seats

Working majority

The seats necessary to pass bills in government

Hung parliament

The result when no party gains a majority of seats

Outcome of hung Parliaments

1. The largest party forms a coalition with a smaller party

2. The largest party (usually) forms a government and relies on opposition votes to pass bills

Examples of coalition governments

• The 2010 Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition.

Examples of minority governments

• The Conservatives in 2017 under May had DUP support with ‘supply and confidence’ votes.

Outcomes of FPTP

• Two-party system

• Winner’s bonus

FPTP leads to a two-party system

• The winning candidate can gain a seat with a small proportion of the vote, while those who come second or third gain no representation at all, ‘winner takes all’

• This is beneficial to parties with geographically concentrated support, such as Conservative rural seats

• Parties with more thinly spread support are unlikely to gain a plurality in many seats, and thus gain disproportionately few seats

Examples of FPTP leading to a two-party system

Reform won 14.6% of the vote, coming third overall in terms of vote share in 2024, but only gained 5 seats.

FPTP gives a winner’s bonus

• The winning party is over-rewarded by FPTP, as the number of seats it gains is usually much higher than its vote share

• This tends to result in a strong majority for the winning party, making it easier to form a government and pass legislation

Examples of FPTP giving a winner’s bonus (and this improving the legislative capability of the government)

• In 2024, Labour won 63% of seats on only 33.7% of the vote

• Johnson won an 80-seat majority in 2019 and could pass his Brexit withdrawal bill

FPTP should be retained

• Simple

• Speedy government formation

• Strong, stable, accountable government

• Preventing extreme parties from taking power

• The MP-constituency link

FPTP is simple

• The FPTP voting system is easy for voters to understand, they just need to mark their ballot papers with an ‘X’

• This can encourage turnout and hence increase the legitimacy of outcomes

Issues with FPTP being simple

• Voters have proven themselves capable of using more complicated voting methods, with AMS being used in Scottish elections and SV previously used in mayoral elections

• The sense that only two parties have a chance of winning may deter people from voting, with only 60% turnout in 2024

FPTP allows for speedy government formation

FPTP usually produces single-party majorities, so the new government can form quickly after the election, unlike European countries with proportional systems such as Belgium.

UK vs. Belgium

UK:

• Only two elections since 1945 have been without a majority

• It takes two days on average to form a government

Belgium:

• Most elections result in a coalition

• It takes 98 days on average to form a government; in 2010, it took 541 days

Responses to FPTP allows for speedy government formation

• Belgium’s situation is due to its three distinct regions and languages: this wouldn’t be true in the UK, the Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition in 2010 only took 8 days to form

• The use of a mixed-member voting system in Scotland hasn’t yielded massively different results, just a lesser winner’s bonus for the SNP (50% of seats in the 2021 Parliamentary election vs. 81% in the 2019 UK election)

FPTP delivers strong, stable and accountable governments

• Strength: majority governments are more easily able to get their policies enacted

• Stability: coalitions are more likely to break apart

• Accountability: majority governments are clearly responsible for what happens while they’re in power

Examples of FPTP delivering a strong government

• Theresa May called an election in 2017 because the 2015 majority wasn’t enough to get through divisive votes on EU withdrawal

• Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal was voted through after the 2019 election

Examples of coalition governments being unstable

• The SNP/Green power-sharing agreement broke down in April 2024

Examples of coalition governments being difficult to hold to account

• The Liberal Democrats were blamed for Conservative policies such as austerity and tuition fees while in coalition

Responses to FPTP delivers strong, stable and accountable governments

• Voters can’t punish governments effectively under FPTP, especially in safe seats

• Governments with large majorities can force through bad or unpopular policies

• Most minority and coalition governments in Scotland and Wales have been stable

Examples of difficulties in holding governments to account under FPTP

• Jacob Rees Mogg won a large majority in Somerset North East despite his comments saying that Grenfell Tower residents ‘lacked common sense’

Examples of large majority governments passing through unpopular policies

• Thatcher’s restrictions on unions

• Blair’s NHS public-private partnerships

FPTP prevents extreme parties from taking power

• Proportional systems run the risk that small, possibly extreme parties will gain representation

• Under FPTP, extreme voters are unlikely to be geographically concentrated enough to win seats; this encourages ‘broad tent’ politics

Examples of proportion systems leading to extreme parties taking power

• The anti-Islam, far-right Sweden Democrats in 2022 were cosnidered ‘kingmakers’ after becoming the second largest party in the Swedish Parliament

Responses to FPTP preventing extreme parties from taking power

• Main parties with large majorities, or losing support to smaller parties, can adopt extreme policies under FPTP

• The refusal of mainstream parties to cooperate with extremist right parties has limited their influence in other countries

Examples of main parties adopting extreme policies

• The Conservatives ran on a hardline Brexit policy in 2019, removing the whip from pro-EU Conservatives, such as Rory Stewart, who tried to block a ‘no deal’ Brexit.

Examples of mainstream parties refusing to cooperate with right-wing extremist parties in other countries

• Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) and Rassemblement National (RN) in France have failed to gain national power

FPTP allows an MP-constituency link

Under FPTP, MPs can represent local interests; they are often from the area they represent, and are in contact with constituents through surgeries.

Examples of FPTP allows an MP-constituency link

• Many Conservative backbenchers voted against HS2, as it would harm their constituents, although it was supported by the Conservative leadership

Responses to FPTP allows for an MP-constituency link

• Many MPs aren’t from their constituency, and even those who are might not have the same life experience as their constituents

• It is questionable whether MPs represent the diverse views of constituents, particularly when the whip forces obedience to party line

Examples for MPs having different life experiences than their constituents

• In 2022, then-chancellor Rishi Sunak struggled to use contactless payment while attempting to buy a can of Coca-Cola

Examples of MPs failing to represent the views of their constituents

• Rory Stewart was the MP for Penrith and the Border and although his constituents voted for Brexit, he was staunchly pro-EU

FPTP should not be retained

• Disproportional results

• Wasted and surplus votes

• Weak mandates

• Limited voter choice

• Tactical voting

FPTP delivers disproportional results

• FPTP rewards parties with more geographically concentrated support over those with thinly spread support

• Parties could come second in every constituency and come second

• The benefits ‘broad-tent’ parties while disadvantaging third parties

Examples of FPTP delivering disproportional results

• In 2015, the SNP win 56 out of 59 seats with only half the national vote

• In 2024, Labour won over 63% of seats in the Commons with only 33.7% of the vote share

Response to FPTP delivering disproportionate outcomes

Disproportionality is a benefit, as it leads to strong governments and excludes extremist parties.

Marginal/swing seats

Constituencies where the outcome of elections isn’t predictable and power tends to move between parties.

FPTP leads to weak mandates

• In marginal/swing seats with many parties, parties can win a seat on a small vote share, undermining their legitimacy

• The ‘winner’s bonus’ is particularly pronounced at the local level 

Examples of candidates winning marginal seats on a small vote share

• The winning candidate in South West Norfolk in 2024 won only 26.7% of the vote

Examples of the ‘winner’s bonus’ being pronounced on a local level

• In the 2021 Redditch council elections, the Conservatives got 56.5% of the vote but all the seats

Wasted votes

• Votes for losing candidates, which aren’t represented in the parliamentary outcome and don’t benefit the losing parties

Examples of wasted voted under FPTP

• In 2024, 70.8% of votes were wasted in Dumfries & Galloway as the Conservative candidate won with only 29.2% of seats

Surplus votes

Votes for the winning party above the number needed to achieve a plurality and win the seat.

Examples of surplus votes under FPTP

• In 2017, Labour had a 42,000 majority in Knowsley

• This was the largest in the country, with an 85.7% vote share, resulting in many surplus votes

FPTP means that votes ‘matter’ more in swing/marginal seats

In marginal seats, votes are less likely to be wasted or surplus votes than in safe seats, since they are more likely to alter the outcome.

Responses to FPTP leading to wasted and tactical voting

• Under majoritarian and hybrid systems, votes are still wasted or surplus

FPTP leads to tactical voting

• Recent elections have seen the creation of websites like ‘Swap My Vote’, where voters can pledge to swap their votes with others in the country

• Third parties also behave tactically

Tactical voting

People vote for candidates other than their favourite to keep out their least favourite, which results in unpopular parties winning.

Examples of tactical voting among voters

• A 2019 YouGov poll found that 32% voted tactically

Examples of tactical voting among parties

• The Brexit party stood down in 317 strong Conservative seats so as not to split the pro-Brexit vote

Similarities between majoritarian and plurality systems

• Single-member constituencies

• Disproportional outcomes, with the number of MPs not reflecting the vote share of parties

Differences between majority and plurality systems

• Majoritarians systems given voters choice of more than one candidate

• Candidates must win a majority to win the seat in a given constituency

Supplementary Vote (SV)

• Voters can choose a first and second preference candidate

• If a candidate gets a majority, votes are not redistributed

• If no candidate gets a majority, all but the top two are eliminated

• The second preference votes of the eliminated candidates are redistributed and the candidate with the majority of votes wins

Uses of SV

Until 2022:

• Mayoral elections

• Police and Crime Commissioner

Alternate vote (AV)

• Voters can rank as many candidates as they like in order of preference

• If a candidate receives a majority, they win the seat

• If no candidate receives a majority, the last place candidate is eliminated and their second preference votes are redistributed

• This process repeats until a candidate has a majority

Uses of AV

Majoritarian systems should be used

• Strength, stability, prevents from extreme parties from taking power and the MP-constituency link

• Stronger mandates

• Encourages competition

• More voter choice

Majoritarian systems allows for strength, stability, prevents extreme parties from taking power and the MP-constituency link

• SV shares several of the strengths of FPTP

• As it eliminates all candidates bar the top two, it is likely to result in a two-party system and a strong, single-party governments

• Extremist parties are mostly eliminated and are unlikely to gain enough second preference votes to win power

• Retains single-member constituencies, meaning that voters have local representatives

Examples of extremist parties struggling under majoritarian systems

• Britain First was eliminated in the first round of the 2021 London mayoral election

Majoritarian systems deliver stronger mandates

• MPs can’t win on a minority of votes

• Second preferences prevent the ‘spoiler effect’

The ‘spoiler effect’

When the majority’s ideology is split between multiple candidates, resulting in a winner unrepresentative of the majority’s ideology.

Majoritarian systems encourage greater competition

Candidates must appeal to both their supporters and voters who would choose them as their second choice.

Examples of majoritarian system candidates appeal to more voters

• In 2021, Sadiq Khan’s campaign included policies on net zero and reducing air pollution, suggesting an appeal to Green voters

Response to majoritarian systems encouraging competition

• In safe seats, candidates would win a majority of first preference votes and would not have to compete for second preference votes

Majoritarian systems give greater voter choice

• Voters can choose more than one candidate

• Supporters of third parties are not forced to vote tactically

• The result is therefore has more legitimacy

Examples of majoritarian systems proving greater voter choice

• In 2021, YouTuber Niko Omilana came fifth, indicating that the choice afforded by SV encouraged younger voters to turn out, increasing legitimacy

Responses to majoritarian systems providing greater voter choice

• Tactical voting continues, as the second preference votes of eliminated candidates will be redistributed

• Under SV, they have to predict the top two candidates

Majoritarian systems should not be used

• A ‘false majority’

• Disproportional results

• Too complex

• Transferred votes give no mandate

Majoritarian systems create a ‘false majority’

• The votes of those with no second preference or whose second preference are eliminated candidates are wasted

• There may not be enough second preference votes to give either candidate a majority

Examples of majoritarian systems creating a ‘false majority’

• Only in the 2016 London mayoral election did the candidate gained more than 50% of votes

Responses to majoritarian systems creating a ‘false majority’

• Majoritarian systems are still more likely to produce a true majority than FPTP

Majoritarian systems result in disproportional outcomes

Majoritarian systems can give less proportional outcomes than FPTP.

Examples of majoritarian systems giving disproportional results

• The Electoral Society calculated that, under AV, the 2015 general election would been more disproportional

Responses to majoritarian systems giving disproportional results

• Majoritarian systems are not usually more disproportional than FPTP

• Proportionality arguably does not matter

• Parties should be rewarded for being the second preference of many voters, which shows that they are not widely disliked