different electoral systems (pros/cons/impact)

First Past the Post (FPTP)

- An electoral system, sometimes known as a plurality system

- candidate with the largest number of votes is elected

- Victory is achieved by having at least one more vote than other contenders

- Used in general elections, local councils elections in England/Wales, metro mayors, police and crime commissioner (PCC)

Advantages of FPTP

• Quick and simple

• Provides a strong and stable government (two party system)

• Since candidates need broad support to win, extremist parties are less likely to gain power.

• Promotes a strong link between MPs and constituencies

• It's easy to understand and produces a clear result in each constituency

• Produces one single representative for each constituency and so creates a close constituency-MP bond (possibly reducing democratic deficit)

• FPTP gives voters the opportunity to choose a candidate based on their individual attitude to issues, rather than merely according to their party allegiance

• The AV 2011 referendum showed that people wanted to keep the FPTP system, people didn’t want it to change

• Compared to proportional representation, FPTP elections are usually cheaper to run and require less complex infrastructure.

Disadvantages of FPTP

• MPs and government don't need majority

• Conservatives (David Cameron) house majority with 36.9% of popular vote - A party can win power without a majority of the vote (e.g., winning seats with less than 50% of votes in each constituency).

• Lack of proportionality

• Limited voter choice

• Safe seats leads to unequal votes

• The overall outcome isn't proportional or fair. Some parties win more seats that their support warrants, while others win fewer than they deserve

• Prevents new parties breaking into the system and so produces political 'inertia'

• tactical voting encouraged

  • electoral reform society found that 32% of voters cast their ballots tactically, choosing a party not as their first preference but to prevent another party's win.

• Some constituencies become predictable, reducing voter motivation and accountability.

impact of FPTP system

• Parties with concentrated influence in constituencies benefit the most from FPTP as their candidate is most likely to win

• Efficient

• Parties that are thinly spread across UK find it harder to gain concentrated support in one constituency, making it harder for those party candidates to win. This affects parties like Greens 

• Disproportionate spread of seats in relation to share of votes -- 2024/2015 election. Plays to the strengths of larger parties

• In 2024 400,000 votes were required to elect 1 green MP. 56,000 votes needed for 1 conservative MP - efficiency for Tory party

• Concentration of support will allow for more efficiency for the big parties

• FPTP can influence who people vote for. Unlikely that someone would vote for an independent candidate when they're up against a Labour/Tory candidate. People might feel they are wasting their vote and just vote for a big party candidate

• FPTP prevents people from voting for the candidate they like the most. Green supporters in 2017 voted for Labour as they thought this was the next best option (as green probably wouldn't win). People vote tactically by voting for someone in order to prevent someone they dislike from winning 

• Can produce a hung parliament. In 2010 led to a coalition government, in 2017 Tory reliance on DUP

• Turnout is often higher in marginal seat areas. If you are in a safe seat you probably won't vote, but in a marginal seat you will feel like your vote really matters as it could go either way

Additional Member System (AMS)

- A hybrid electoral system

- The voter makes two choices

- First, the voter selects a representative by FPTP

- A second vote is made for a party

- Additional members would be elected by these votes

- Additional members don't have a constituency

- Used in Scottish Parliament and the Greater London Assembly (GLA)

advantages of AMS

• Produces a broadly proportional outcome and so is fairer to all parties

• Gives voters two votes and therefore more choice

• Combines preserving constituency representation w/ a proportional outcome

• Helps small parties that cannot win constituency contests

• The system ensures that the overall number of seats better reflects the share of votes received by each party, reducing the likelihood of one party dominating unfairly.

• Voters still have a directly elected local representative through FPTP, maintaining the constituency link.

• Unlike pure FPTP, AMS allows smaller parties to gain seats through the proportional "top-up" regional lists, increasing political diversity.

• Voters who support smaller parties in constituencies can still see their vote count towards the proportional allocation of seats.

• Since single-party majorities are less common, governments often have to cooperate and negotiate policies, leading to a broader consensus.

disadvantages of AMS

•  Produces two classes of representative - those w/ a constituency and those elected through the lists. The latter tend to be senior

• More complex than FPTP. Having two votes can be confusing

• Can result in the election of extremist candidates

•  Some argue that constituency MSPs/MSs/AMs (directly elected) have greater legitimacy than regional representatives (elected from party lists), which can create tensions.

• Party leadership determines the ranking of candidates on the regional list, reducing voter choice and potentially favouring party loyalty over public accountability.

•  Since it often leads to coalition governments, policymaking can be slower, and unstable alliances can cause governance challenges.

•  If a party wins more constituency seats than its proportional entitlement, it can distort proportionality. Additionally, voters may try to game the system by splitting their two votes strategically.

 

impact of AMS system

• Gives opportunity to split votes (vote one party and a different party candidate)

  • Voters have more choice in who they want

• Seats are allocated more proportionally

• Reduces 'winners bonus' that parties get in FPTP system

• However this creates issues in forming a majority government so this often results in a minority government or a coalition

• Given parties a chance to renew themselves

  • Conservatives able to renew themselves in Scotland after coming second over labour party in 2022

Single Transferable Vote (STV)

- An electoral system where preferences are ranked numerically

- In order to win a seat, a candidate must obtain a quota (number of votes)

- After the votes are cast, if a candidate meets the quota, their excess votes are transferred to other candidates based on second preference

- The candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and votes redistributed based on next preference

- Repeated until all seats are filled

- Used in Northern Ireland Assembly / local elections, also local government elections in Scotland

advantages of STV

• Produces a broadly proportional outcome (STV ensures that seats are distributed more fairly based on voter preferences, so minority groups and smaller parties have a better chance of representation.)

• Gives voters a very wide choice of candidates. The second and subsequent choices of the voters are taken into consideration in the counting

• Voters can vote for candidates from different parties and show a preference between candidates of the same party

• As there are six representatives per constituency, each voter ha a choice of those to represent them and usually can be represented by someone from the party they support

• It helps small parties and independent candidates to be elected

• Minimizes wasted votes – Since votes can transfer to other candidates, fewer votes are "wasted," meaning more people have a say in the final result.

• Encourages voter choice – Voters rank multiple candidates rather than just picking one, giving them more flexibility and influence.

• Reduces tactical voting – Since voters can rank multiple candidates, they don’t have to worry about "wasting" their vote on a less popular candidate.

• Limits safe seats – Because of proportional representation, fewer areas are dominated by one party, making elections more competitive.

• Promotes independent candidates – Unlike party-list systems, STV allows independent candidates to have a fairer chance of being elected.

disadvantages of STV

• A complex system that some voters don't understand

• The vote counting is complicated and can take a long time

• Can help candidates w/ extremist views to be elected

• With six representatives per constituency, the lines of accountability are not clear - Since multiple representatives are elected per district, it can be less clear which politician is responsible for a specific issue.

• Complexity in counting the votes

• Can still lead to disproportionate results – While more proportional than some systems, STV doesn’t always guarantee perfect proportionality, especially if district sizes are small.

impact of STV system

• Voters represented by more than one representative - multi-member constituencies

  • More representation for people

• Time consuming and complicated

• No votes wasted - eliminates tactical voting as all votes are considered

• Can lead to hung parliament where coalition parliament is guaranteed

  • However this works in NI because they have been power sharing for a while (DUP and Sinn Fein)

• 2017-2020 NI assembly gridlock

• Blame cannot be put of electoral system - NI is so divided in community so FPTP wouldn’t work in NI. Power sharing needed to keep the peace

Supplementary Vote (SV)

- A majoritarian electoral system where voters rank first and second choice

- If one candidate obtains more than 50% on the first vote, then they are elected

- Otherwise, the top two candidates remain and supplementary votes are added

- Then, the candidate with the most votes wins

- Was used in city mayor elections until the Elections Act of 2023. No longer used in the UK

advantages of SV

• Ensures a Clear Winner – The system guarantees that the elected candidate has at least some level of majority support (over 50% in the final round).

• Voters have great opportunity to express their support for more than one party 

• Encourages Majority Support – The winning candidate must secure broad support, as they need second-choice votes if no one wins outright in the first round.

• Reduces Tactical Voting – Voters can express their true preference with their first choice and still influence the result with their second choice.

• Maintains Simplicity – While slightly more complex than First-Past-the-Post (FPTP), it is still relatively easy to understand and implement.

• Discourages Extremism – Extreme candidates are less likely to win, as they struggle to gain second-choice votes.

• Encourages Civil Campaigning – Candidates have an incentive to appeal to a wider audience, as they seek second-choice votes from supporters of other candidates.

disadvantages of SV

• The winning candidate may be chosen as a second-choice candidate

• It will probably entrench and promote the two-party system

• Third parties will be more excluded from winning seats than under FPTP 

• Wasted Votes Still Exist – If a voter’s preferred candidate is eliminated and their second choice is also out of the race, their vote is wasted.

• Not Fully Proportional – Like FPTP, SV does not ensure proportional representation, meaning smaller parties may still struggle.

• Still Encourages Tactical Voting – Voters may avoid choosing a less popular candidate as their first choice if they think their second choice is more likely to win.

• Can Lead to Unfair Outcomes – A candidate who is not the most popular first-choice pick can still win if they receive enough second-choice votes.

• Complexity in Counting – The system requires an extra round of counting, which can slow down the results compared to FPTP.

• Limited Choice – Voters can only express two preferences, which may not fully capture their political views.

 

impact of SV system

• Tries to get the candidate that most of the electorate want

• However it promotes a two horse race - will usually be a conservative or labour candidate to win (probably labour)

• Smaller parties less likely to get first preference votes and unlikely to get in top two

  • Ken Livingstone in 2000 is an exception - stood as an independent and did well. Went through to second round of voting

  • Only year when only labour/conservative didn’t go to final round

• Non moderate parties have little chance of winning mayoral elections

  • Rejects freedom of representation

• Marmite parties will also struggle to have representation (either love it or hate it)

• 2021 Peterborough and Cambridgeshire mayoral election

  • Candidate would've won if the electoral system was FPTP after first round of voting

  • Person who was second in first round of voting ended up winning