elections notes

Unit 1: Electoral System Revision Notes

Electoral Systems:

Revision Notes1

/home/pptfactory/temp/20100828214825/fteachinggovernmentpoliticsasgpnotebooklessonsunit1-revisionunit1-electoralsystemsrevisionnotes-100828164823-phpapp01.doc


Electoral Systems: Revision Notes

What is an election?• A popular vote in which citizens get a chance to choose their representatives.• Elections should be free, fair and regular (therefore, democratic). e.g. in

Britain we hold elections every 4-5 years.• A mandate is given to the winning party at elections.

General Elections General elections in Britain are called either when Parliament has run its full five years (an example being in May 1997 when John Major's government reached the end of its five year period on office) or by the Monarch on the 'advice' of the Prime Minister.

One of the advantages of the incumbent government is that (normally), the Prime Minister can choose the timing of the next General Election. Tony Blair opted to delay an election in May 2001 (because of the effects of the Foot and Mouth disease) but chose June 7th 2001 as an alternative. Opposition politicians had no say at all in the date.

A general election is also triggered when a government loses a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons. The last time this happened was in March 1979 when the Labour administration under Jim Callaghan collapsed following a defeat in a non confidence motion brought by the then Leader of the Opposition, Margaret Thatcher.

T h e p u r p o s e o f e l e c t i o n s

Elections Competition elections between political parties are the lifeblood of a democratic system of government. Elections occur at every level of government. In the United Kingdom, regular elections are held to: 1. Elect Members of Parliament to the House of Commons 2. Elect Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly 3. Elect Members of the European Parliament 4. Elect Councils to County Councils, Unitary Authorities

The Purpose of Elections Elections matter! Essentially, they provide an means by which individual people can participate in an indirect democracy through the election of representatives. Direct democracy - in which the people themselves rule, is relatively rare in western democracies.

2/home/pptfactory/temp/20100828214825/fteachinggovernmentpoliticsasgpnotebooklessonsunit1-revisionunit1-

electoralsystemsrevisionnotes-100828164823-phpapp01.doc


What are the key functions of elections?• To choose representatives – b/c country divided into constituencies and

representatives chosen by citizens in each.• To choose govt & PM – party with maj. of seats e.g. Labour 60%• The electorate gives permission to the governing party to carry out the

policies in their manifesto i.e. their mandate.• An example of political participation. By exercising a choice between different

political parties it gives us the power to decide in which direction the country will go.

One of the key functions of any election is as a means of political accountability. Elected politicians must eventually seek a fresh mandate from their electorate. They stand for re-election on the basis of past performance in office (or opposition) and put forward a manifesto that carries details of policy proposals for the next period of government. In this sense, elections are vital in conferring political legitimacy to democratic organisations.

When voter turnout declines, this inevitably damages the legitimacy that can be claimed by a winning candidate. The turnout at the 2001 General Election collapsed to just 59% - easily the lowest in the post war period, raising serious questions about the enthusiasm of British electors for domestic politics and the politicians that populate the political arena.

Other Main ElectionsElections for the European Parliament take place every five years. (There have been elections in 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994 and 1999). Voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also now vote for regional assemblies and parliaments and in London for the mayor and assembly.

The Franchise To be eligible to vote, people in the UK must be on the electoral register (many thousands of people lose their right to vote because they do not register) and

also over 18 years of age. The right to vote requires people to be a British or a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Irish Republic if resident for three months in the United Kingdom. A limited group of people are excluded from the franchise. These include inmates of residential hospitals and prisoners.




T h e 1 9 9 7 G e n e r a l e l e c t i o n

Labour won a huge majority in the 1997 General Election ending eighteen years of Conservative government at Westminster. The landslide win for Tony Blair came as turnout fell to a postwar low (71.7%) and the share of the national vote for the Conservatives collapsed to just 31%. Labour finished the 1997 election with 418 seats and a Commons majority of 176.

The Conservatives lost nearly half their seats from 1992 whilst the Liberal Democrats more than doubled their tally on a slightly lower share of the vote. The




1997 election produced a series of remarkable results: The Conservatives lost all of their seats in Scotland and Wales and won no seats in inner-city areas in England as well. Some commentators concluded that the Conservatives had become the party of rural england rather than a national election winning force.

Labour achieved a landslide win with nearly half a million fewer votes than John Major and the Conservatives had managed when winning with a small majority of 21 in 1992. Voter Turnout was the lowest in the post war period, but 71% was pretty high compared to the dismal turnout of 59.3% at the 2001 election four years later!

What are the four types of different electoral systems?• Simple majority system – it is not necessary to get over 50% of the vote to

win a seat e.g. FPTP.• Majoritarian system – the winning candidate needs to get over 50% of the

vote e.g. AV, SV• Proportional system – votes equate to seats e.g. List system, STV• Hybrid system – combines aspects of both Majoritarian and proportional e.g.

Additional member system, AV

Where is each system used in the UK?• FPTP – in general elections.• SV – for elected mayor of London.• Additional member system – for electing Scottish Parliament, Irish, Welsh and

London Assembly.• List system – for European elections.• STV – in N. Ireland.




S i m p l e p l u r a l i t y e l e c t o r a l s y s t e m s

The plurality system is the simplest, and is more commonly known by its descriptive term, "First Past the Post" (FPTP). Each elector has a single vote, and this is cast, in single member constituencies, for one candidate. The winner will be the candidate who has more votes than any other individual candidate.

FPTP is used in British parliamentary elections (General Elections), and in all federal and state elections for the United States. An example of a plurality seat is given below; this was the result of the constituency of Conway, in North Wales, from the General Election of May 1997.

Mrs Williams Labour 14,561 35.0% R Roberts Lib Dem 12,965 31.2% D Jones Conservative 10,085 24.3% R Davies Plaid Cymru 2,844 6.8% Others 1,105 2.6% Labour majority: 1,596 3.8%

Here, the winning candidate was Mrs Williams representing the Labour party.

Ease of use: The system is simple for the voter to use (marking a cross), and determining a result from the data is also very easy (simple addition)

Preferentially: There is no opportunity for the candidates to indicate any preference within the ballot (i.e. on the paper itself), although naturally tactical voting can be used to ensure some degree of preferentially.

Proportionality: Under plurality systems the extent of proportionality depends mainly upon the number of parties and the degree of concentration of a party in a particular region. Where there are fewer parties, there is a better chance of a proportional outcome, for example the United States, with its entrenched two-party system.

Regional concentration is important as well. In 1997 the Welsh Nationalists Plaid Cymru won 4 seats, all in the north-western corner of Wales where welsh culture and language is best preserved. In much of the rest of Wales, they polled only a few percent. The 4 seats out of 40 Welsh seats (10%), matched very closely with the 10.7% of the Welsh vote that they achieved.

On the other hand, where parties have their voters widespread, they will do very poorly in proportional terms. The Liberal/SDP Alliance only won 23 seats in the 1983 election (3.5%), however in terms of share of the vote; they achieved 25.4%, which ought to have entitled them to 165 seats.




Constituency Link: In Constitutional theory such as presented in J.S.Mill's "Representative Government", the link between a constituency MP and his constituents is very important as it enables him to listen to their views and make a suitable judgement. In today's environment of tightly controlled party systems, the MP has far less discretion to take into account the views of his constituency. Nonetheless, in an era when political leaders are seen as becoming ever more detached from the people, the constituency MP is an important link. Under plurality systems, with single member constituencies, this link is preserved; indeed there are many examples when an MP may not be nationally very famous, however is very well known and respected among his local community (e.g. David Mudd - MP Falmouth & Cambourne 1966-1992).

National result: The plurality system, by lacking proportionality, traditionally rewards the party which benefits from a split opposition: Labour in 1997 was able to achieve 419 seats, representing 63.5% of the seats based upon only 43% of the votes, and the Tories in 1983 obtained a similar result. Almost invariable, single-party government is produced, which is normally highly stable (although a small majority - as experienced by John Major's Conservative government 1992-7 - can be highly unstable).

The plurality system traditionally resulted in small changes in votes resulting in large changes in seats. With the disproportionately large change in seats in comparison with votes, it is usually easy to remove a party from office.




P r o p o r t i o n a l e l e c t o r a l s y s t e m s - p a r t y l i s t s y s t e m s

There are a number of different proportional systems, each with their own variants.

Party List SystemsThese are the simplest form of proportional systems. Parliamentary seats are eliminated, and the voter has to vote for a party only. The parties then draw up a list of candidates, ranked in order of preference. Each party is then allocated as many seats as is in direct proportion to their votes, and their members at the top of the list are elected. The list can either be closed (chosen entirely by the party), or there are some opportunities for it to be open (where the voter has some choice of candidate). If this was done on a simple UK wide basis, the results of the 1997 election would have been:

In this situation, all the other parties would have gained at the expense of Labour. It is obvious that the table is lacking in clarity because of the combination of the Northern Ireland MPs, and the Scottish and Welsh nationalists. Overall, they only obtained a few percent; however that was due to their standing in selected areas. Using a national list system penalises parties which are regionally based. As a consequence, the obvious solution is to have a regional list system.

2001 General Election and a Pure Party List SystemLabour won a second landslide in the 2001 general election. But it would not have secured a Commons Majority had seats been allocated proportionate to votes cast. Remember that Labour's share of the national vote fell to just 40.7% in June 2001. The allocation of seats under a list system would have looked like that shown in the chart below. Labour would have won only 268 seats - well short of the level required to have a majority over all other parties.




The method by which the seats are determined is uncertain. The method used in the example above is very simple, merely find the round number of seats, which is nearest to the precise percentage of the vote of each party. This is not universally used, and a popular method of allocating list representatives is to use what is known as the d'Hont allocation mechanism, coined by a French mathematician. This will be considered later.




Summary of electoral systems

The First-Past-the-Post System (FPTP)

How does the FPTP system work?• The country is divided into 659 single-member constituencies.• Within each constituency each person eligible to vote will have ONE vote.• The winning candidate must get more votes than each of the other

candidates, but need not achieve 50% of votes.• The political party with the most winning candidates, and therefore seats,

goes on to form the government.

What are the arguments in favour of FPTP?• It is simple to understand in relation to other systems i.e. voters have one

choice only.• The voter can express a view on which party should form the next govt.• Creates strong and decisive govt and no need for coalitions which can be

problematic.• It provides a strong link between the MP and their constituency in relation to

multi-member systems.• The winning party can claim a mandate in terms of seats.• Can contain extremist parties, stopping parties like the BNP from holding any

power.

What are the weaknesses of FPTP?• Over-representation of the winning party e.g. Labour only won 40% of votes,

but have 60% seats.• Under-representation of other parties e.g. Lib Dems b/c of regional bias.• Wasted votes are an issue because if you do not vote for the winning

candidate your vote does not count for anything e.g. 1997, 48.2% of those who voted cast ineffective votes.

• Lack of voter choice – party picks candidates and you can only vote for one. If the candidate selected for the party you wish to vote for holds views you strongly oppose it is difficult to choose.

• Tactical voting – voting for the least objectionable candidate, or intentionally voting against a particular candidate.

Alternative Vote System (AV)

How does the AV system work?• The country is divided usually into single member constituencies.• Voters would rank their candidates in order of preference (1 being their

favourite etc)




• If a candidate receives an absolute majority of votes (50% + 1) he/she would be elected.

• However if no single candidate gets more than 50%, the candidate with the lowest number of first preferences is "eliminated" from the count, and their ballot examined for their second preferences.

• These are then assigned to the remaining candidates in the order as marked on the ballot.

• This process is repeated until one candidate has an absolute majority, and is declared duly elected.

What are the arguments in favour of AV?• The bond between members and their constituencies is retained.• It produces strong and decisive government and coalitions, if ever formed,

would be strong.• All MPs would have the support of the majority of their constituents.• It prevents MPs from being elected on a minority vote.• Less need for negative/tactical voting.• Less wasted votes.

What are the weaknesses of AV?• It does very little to those who are traditionally under-represented in

parliament.• There is no transfer of powers from party authority to the voters b/c there is

no choice of candidates, and it does not produce a proportional parliament.• 2nd/3rd party could gain support on 2nd/3rd preferences as they are least

objectionable, but not first choice.

Single Vote System (SV)

How does the SV system work?• The country is divided into single member constituencies.• Voters in each constituency have two votes. • Voters’ first preferences are counted and if one candidate gets over 50% of

the vote he/she is elected.• If, however, no candidate manages to win 50% of the vote the two highest

scoring candidates are retained – the rest are eliminated.• The second preferences are then examined and any votes received by the

two remaining candidates are redistributed. Whoever now has over 50% of the vote, wins.

What are the advantages of SV?• There is still a link between constituents and MPs.




• It overcomes one of the flaws of the AV system; as it is between the first two parties, it is guaranteed that the one elected based on second preference votes has a majority of first preference votes.

• It ensures majority support of the winner and creates strong government.• It reduces the number of wasted votes.

What are the disadvantages of SV?• Smaller parties do not have much of a voice – there is still a lot of under-

representation.• Votes do not equate to seats – often there is over-representation of the

winning party.• Tactical voting could still be an issue.

Single Transferable Vote (STV)

How does STV work?• The country is divided into multi-member constituencies. These

constituencies would be much larger than in FPTP and would return more than one representative.

• Parties can put up as many candidates as they like and voters have the opportunity to rank all candidates in order of preference.

• Seats are allocated on a quota system. For each constituency, all candidates who meet the quota are elected.

• Candidates who reach the quota on first preferences are elected. If after this seats are still available then a process of redistribution takes place.

• The surplus votes of those already elected are redistributed to other candidates until all seats are filled.

What are the advantages of STV?• Gives a much better fit between votes and seats than the FPTP system.

Therefore is fairer to smaller parties.• Multi-member constituencies mean that a higher proportion of constituents

will feel they have a representative from the party of their choice.• No need for tactical voting – voters can cast a positive vote in the knowledge

that their vote will not be wasted.• Governments are strong and stable b/c founded on the majority support of the

electorate.

What are the disadvantages of STV?• Still not exactly proportional.• Breaks the link between an individual MP and his/her constituents.




Party List System

How does the Party List system work?• Closed party list – each party’s list of candidates, ranked according to the

party’s preference, is published on the ballot paper.• Voters simply vote for the party, they have no say as to which candidates are

elected.• After voting is complete, all votes are counted and each party receives seats

in the constituency in the same proportion as it won in that constituency.• A quota, or number of votes required to win a seat, is calculated for that

constituency.• Those who become the party’s MPs will be those placed highest in the party

list.• Open party list – the voter can vote either for the list as published, or for an

individual candidate, wherever the candidate appears on the party list.• Seats are allocated according to the number of quotas won.

What are the arguments in favour of the Party List system?• It is the fairest in terms of party representation. If a party receives 32% of the

vote it will receives 32% of the seats in Parlt.• Simple for voters to understand.

What are the weaknesses of the Party List system?• With closed party lists, voters have little or no effective choice over

candidates, only control over which party is in govt.• The large constituencies give little chance for accountability to voters and no

local connection between members and constituents.• Could give rise to multi-party coalitions – not v. strong govt.• Gives smaller, more extreme parties a chance.

Additional Member System (AMS)

How does the Additional Member system work?• The country is divided into single-member constituencies AND regions• Each voter has two votes, one for a single MP via FPTP, and one for a

regional or national party list.• Half the seats or more are allocated to the single-member constit. Part and

the rest to the party list.• Additional members are decided on proportional basis by comparing the no.

of constituency seats won to the no. of party votes achieved. Parties who have performed well on party list but not on constit. element will be given additional seats.




What are the arguments in favour of the Additional Member system?• Less under-representation of smaller parties.• It retains a number of single-member constituencies. Therefore keeping the

strong link between MPs and constituents.• It has produced strong and stable govts in Germany (however, not single-

party govts).• The separation of the vote allows the voter to express personal support for a

candidate without necessarily helping that candidate’s party.

What are the weaknesses of the Additional Member system?• It combines many of the faults of FPTP with many of the defects of the list

system.• Half of all MPs are not directly accountable to any voters, just to party

leadership and have no constituency. i.e. two types of MPs.• The parties would retain power over selecting candidates for constituency

seats.

Second Ballot System

How does the Second Ballot system work?• The country is divided into single-member constituencies.• Voters have one vote, choosing their favourite candidate.• If one candidate gets over 50% on first ballot, they are selected.• If this does not occur then there is a second ballot. In this ballot, the two

strongest candidates can remain in the contest, or only those who have reached a threshold vote.

• The winning candidate on the second ballot is the candidate who is elected.

What are the advantages of the Second Ballot system?• Maintains link between MP & constituent.• Likely that the winning candidate will have over 50% of support.• Will produce strong and decisive govt.• More voter choice due to second vote.• Fewer wasted votes as people encouraged to be more decisive.

What are the disadvantages of the Second Ballot system?• Still not proportional.• Doesn’t automatically guarantee over 50% majority.• Often second ballot has low turnout.




Additional Vote Plus (AV+)

How does AV+ work?• Country divided into constituencies and regions.• Every voter gets two votes – one vote for constit. Candidate (ranked, AV

system used) and one for party “top-up” MPs.• Top-up votes go to political parties who are under-represented on constit.

element. (So the number of party votes achieved compared to number of seats won).

• In this system there is an open list system.

What are the arguments in favour of AV+?• Clearer mandate b/c winning candidate has at least 50% of support in

constituency element.• There is greater voter choice and less wastage of votes – however it is not

completely eliminated.• It is a broadly proportional system.• Produces strong, decisive govt – if coalitions, only 2/3 parties so more stable

type of coalition.

What are the weaknesses of AV+?• As with AMS, there will be two categories of MPs.• Still not proportional.• Not in operation anywhere, therefore cannot observe its results.

E l e c t o r a l r e f o r m a n d t h e m i n o r p a r t i e s

What impact have the different electoral systems used in the UK had on party representation?

• AMS is more proportional than FPTP therefore better representation of smaller parties e.g. in Scotland there is a LibLab coalition.

• Support for Labour maintained as they still receive constituency seats under the AMS system. Do not have overall majority however – LibLab coalition.

• Conservatives in Wales are 3rd party so receive 3rd most amounts of seats. Reflective of ranking rather than being unproportional.

• STV system allowed numerous smaller parties to obtain seats. Given rise to wider range of party representation and much closer fit between votes and seats.

Since 1997 there has been substantial electoral reform in Britain - although the system for electing Members of Parliament to Westminster (the First Past The Post system) remains firmly in place with little prospect of change before the next




General Election. FPTP is still the system in operation for elections to County Councils and Unitary Authorities at local government level.

However in the last few years we have seen:

(a) The introduction of the Additional Member System (AMS) for elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly (b) The use of Alternative Vote to elect the London Mayor (c) The introduction of a regional closed party list system for direct elections to the European Parliament (d) The use of Single Transferable Vote (STV) for electing representatives to the new Northern Ireland Assembly

How have these new systems affected Britain's minority parties? The most enthusiastic supporters of electoral reform are normally those parties who claim to be disadvantaged by the current system. The Liberal Democrats (and formerly the SDP and Liberals) have been consistent in wanting to ditch First Past The Post and replace it with a new electoral system. They argue that the simple majority system leads to under-representation of smaller parties whose vote is fairly evenly spread across the country but insufficient to win many seats against the leading two parties, Labour and the Conservatives.

Case Study 1: Scottish Parliament Elections and Welsh Assembly Elections in 1999

The elections to the newly established Scottish parliament were held in May 1999 using the Additional Member System. Under AMS, the existing 73 Scottish "Westminster" constituencies were fought using FPTP. A further 54 seats were allocated using a top-up procedure.

Each region of Scotland was allocated a number of top-up seats, distributed among parties by use of the "highest-average" calculation. Voters had cast a second vote for a political party. These second votes were counted and then allocated to parties on the basis of the highest average vote. But parties that had won seats under the FPTP elections started off with a higher divider - so that parties with no or few seats under FPTP were more likely to win the top-up seats.

The final result in Scotland demonstrated how electoral reform benefits parties with little hope of significant representation under FPTP. Labour secured fifty-three seats under FPTP and would have earned a decisive majority in the new Scottish Parliament had only FPTP been used. The Liberal Democrats came second with twelve seats and the SNP gained seven. The Conservatives made no headway at all under FPTP.




But the top-up procedure gave them eighteen seats (14% of the total available seats) whilst the SNP did even better with twenty-eight extra MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament) and five extra for the Liberal Democrats. The Green Party was also able to secure one seat in the new Parliament.

The net result was that Labour failed to win an overall majority and had to enter into a coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats. In Wales, 40 seats were determined using FPTP and another 20 seats were allocated using the top-up formula. Under FPTP, Labour won 27 seats; the Welsh Nationalists Plaid Cymru gained 9 seats, the Liberal Democrats 3 and the Conservatives just a solitary seat.

The top-up allocation provided Labour with just one more seat. And the eight extra seats for both Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives together with another 3 seats for the Liberal Democrats was sufficient, as in Scotland, to stop Labour short of a ruling majority in the Welsh Assembly.




The impact of new electoral arrangements for these devolved institutions has had a major effect on the nature of politics in Scotland and Wales. Under FPTP, Labour would have won easy victories with large majorities. The Additional Member System created a new electoral landscape and a move towards coalition politics.

Case Study 2: European Parliament Elections 1999

The 1999 European Parliament elections were the first to be held under a regional closed party list system. The "closed" aspect of the list system was criticised by many commentators at the time. It gives huge power to political parties in determining which candidates appear on the list and the position on the list that they occupy. Voters could only cast one vote for a party - they could not




express preferences between candidates. And, there was no provision for candidates within a party list to move up and down the list depending on their popularity with the voter.

In fact, the turnout throughout Britain was only 23% - a pathetically low figure and testimony to the lack of engagement that voters felt with the whole process of sending representatives to the European Parliament. How did the party list system impact on smaller parties? Conservatives and Labour once again dominated the final allocation of seats. Together they won 65 seats. But in 1999, the Liberal Democrats won 10 seats (their previous best performance in 1994 was just 2 seats) and the Scottish Nationalists and Plaid Cymru each won a brace of seats. The Greens also secured two seats and the UK Independence Party went one better. The effect was that seats were allocated in much closer proportion to votes.

It is clear from these two case studies that electoral reform tends to favour smaller political parties who have little hope of making headway under First Past The Post. These are real results from real elections. The Liberal Democrats have gained a share of power in Scotland. Greens have achieved election to the European Parliament. The Nationalists have done well (although their concentrated support has helped them in FPTP elections to Westminster). Perhaps the greatest impact has been for the Conservatives. In the 1997 General Election, the Conservatives failed to win a single seat in Scotland or Wales. They won only one seat in the June 2001 General Election. At least with the introduction of the Additional Member System, they now have a meaningful representation in Scotland and Wales.




Given that FPTP is systemically biased against them, perhaps support for reform to Westminster elections might gradually increase as we head towards a General Election in the future.



elections notes

Documents

regular elections

key functions of elections

election of representatives

period of government

elect members of parliament

political legitimacy

incumbent government

level of government