1.3 - Electoral Systems

FPTP

each UK constituency is represented by 1 MP → creates a link between voters and MP

winning candidate only needs 1 more vote than their nearest rival

each voter has 1 vote

FPTP should be replaced:

fairer representation (Labour won 34% of the vote and 63% of seats)

increased turnout (Scotland AMS got a 63.5% turnout) whereas 2024 GE in UK got 59.4%

fewer safe seats

e.g. 2019 UK GE, Tories won an 80 seat majority → quick progress on Brexit legislation

FPTP shouldn’t be replaced:

produces stable majority govts. (2019 and 2024 general elections)

clear accountability (2019 Tories were judged over Covid policies and Partygate)

reform could be difficult (2011 AV referendum 68% voted no → limited public support)

AMS

proportional system

voters vote for a constituency candidate and a regional party

pros of AMS:

more proportional than FPTP → less wasted votes

maintains voter→MP link

doesnt overlook smaller parties

results in coalition or minority govts.

cons of AMS:

creates 2 representatives (constituency and refgional) lead to unequeal legitimacy

more complex than other systems, discouraging voters

coalition or minority govts. may struggle to govern and pass legislation effectively

e.g. SNP minority govts. in 2007-2011 and since 2021

STV

each constituency elects several representatives

highly proportionate

ordinal voting

pros of STV:

highly proportional

gives voters more choice

minimises wasted votes

reduces the number of safe seats

doesnt overlook smaller parties

cons of STV:

more complex and could reduce turnout/chance of spoilled ballots

weakens voter→MP link

leads to coalition govts.

requires voters to understand a wide range of candidates making ordinal voting hard

e.g. Northern Ireland Assembly uses STV as part of its power sharing agreements → improves representation but sometimes leads to executive deadlock

SV

used in single member constituencies

pros of SV:

relatively simple

doesnt overlook smaller parties

results are counted faster than in proportional systems

enocourages broad appeal as candidates must attract enough 2nd preference support

e.g. in former London mayor elections, candidates relied on broad appeal to attract second preference votes → influenced campaign strategies and increased legitimacy of the mayor

cons of SV:

produces disproportionate results

leads to wasted votes

encourages tactical voting

reinforces the 2 party system

Referendums

  1. 1997 Scotland - led to creation of Scottish Parliament

  2. 1997 Wales - created the Welsh Assembly

  3. 1998 London - created the London Mayor and Assembly

  4. 2011 AV referendum - FPTP remained the voting system

  5. 2014 Scotland independence - Scotland didnt gain independence

  6. 2016 Brexit - led to Brexit → major constitutional, economic and political change

pros of referendums:

legitimacy - give strong democratic authority to make constituional decisions

boost participation - help democracy and voter turnout

resolve controversies - settle long running debates

public accountability - make people responsible for outcomes

cons of referendums:

oversimplification - reduce complex issues to a yes/no question

risk of populism - voters may be influenced by emotional appeal/misinformation

undermines representative democracy - MPs are elected to make decisions, referendums weaken their role

political manipulation - govts. call referendums when it benefits them politically rather than the public