British Electoral Systems

Elections

 

First Past The Post (FPTP)

Under FPTP, voting takes place in single member constituencies. FPTP is a plurality system, meaning a candidate is not required to obtain a majority of the vote, instead they require the most votes. Voters are given only one vote, the system is very simple, voters will place an ‘X’ in the box beside their preferred candidate and submit the ballot paper. Whichever candidate achieves the largest number of votes is elected. This is known as gaining a plurality or simple majority.

Hampstead and Kilburn Constituency – May 6^th 2010

Candidate	Party	Votes	% of Votes
Glenda Jackson	Labour	17,332	32.8
Chris Philp	Conservative	17,290	32.7
Edward Fordham	Liberal Democrat	16,491	31.2
Bea Campbell	Green	759	1.4

Glenda Jackson won her seat by a mere 42 votes (0.1%) and 32.8% of the total vote. All the other votes were not taken into account, meaning they were wasted. Although Chris Philp came close to second place, only Jackson won her seat. Smaller parties were completely squeezed out of the competition.

Advantages

·       Creates a strong single government which are stable and cohesive, rarely collapsing

·       It’s a fairly straight forward system and the electorate are very rarely confused

·       Winning party has a clear mandate to carry out its programme of reform

·       Easily prevents extremist parties such as BNP or UKIP (arguably not a FAR right party) are unlikely to obtain seats

·       MP’s have a strong constituency link because they have a clear role to take up constituents interests and grievances. One MP servers one constituency.

·       Results are announced quickly

Disadvantages

·       The majority of the votes are usually wasted. In 2010’s general election 15.7 million votes were wasted

·       It has the tendency to systematically discriminate in favour of large parties at the expense of smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats and Green’s, thus offering voters an artificially narrow choice of candidates because small parties are guaranteed to do bad

·       A higher number of safe seats exist. East Ham constituency = 70.4% safe seats. 382/650 seats in the Commons are safe. There is no guarantee an MP who sits in a safe seat will be a good, sympathetic representative because its unlikely their seat will ever change

·       A majority is not required. It’s become the norm for MP’s to win their seats with less than 40% of the votes and 2/3 MP’s lack the support of a majority. This puts their democratic legitimacy to a question. Also, arguably they don’t have a clear mandate

·       The 2010 general election produced a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition (which FPTP usually never does), the coalition has no mandate

FPTP is used in general elections in the United Kingdom (electing MP’s)

ALTERNATIVE VOTE (AV)

AV is a preferential system where the voters have the opportunity to rak candidates in order of preference. Voters simply order candidates in order of preference using numbers, a ‘1’ for their first choice, ‘2’ for their second and so on until there are no more candidates or the voter no longer wishes to express their views.

Candidates are elected if they gain a majority of the first preference votes. If not, the candidate with the least first preferences is eliminated and their voters are redistributed among the other candidates. This process continues until one candidate has a majority of the voters and is elected.

In May 2011, a referendum to switch FPTP for AV was held, but the electorate gave a clear NO

Advantages

·       Stronger/Higher democratic legitimacy for candidates as all MP’s are elected on the basis of them gaining a majority, not a plurality. In 2010, 2/3 of MP’s lacked a majority of votes, this was the highest figure since the 1920’s.

·       Keeps out extremists

·       Has a very low number of wasted votes compared to FPTP because votes are redistributed

·       Produces a majority government

·       Very low safe seats compared to FPTP

Disadvantages

·       Not proportional representation and thus, may be unlikely in increasing representation of smaller parties because smaller parties are required to gain a majority of the votes which is very difficult for them

·       Donkey Voting – when the electorate vote in order candidates appear on the ballot paper

·       Despite candidates requiring a majority, votes are still wasted, but not as much as they are wasted for FPTP

·       More complex than FPTP

·       Minor parties continue to be unfairly represented

The Alternative Vote is used in general election in Australia

SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE (STV)

STV is a form of proportional representation that uses preferential voting in multi-member constituencies. Although its perhaps the most complex electoral system out there, its favoured by many for its fairness and the amount of choice it gives voters.

Candidates are not required to obtain a majority of votes to be elected, just a ‘quota’, or share of the votes, determined by the size of the electorate and the number of positions filled.

How it works:

1.     Constituencies return more than one member each. In Northern Ireland the normal number is 6

2.     In order to be elected, a candidate must achieve a ‘quota’. The quota is calculated by the total votes cast divide by the number of seats +1

3.     Voters may vote for all the candidates in order of preference. Its not compulsory to vote for all candidates

4.     Voters may vote for candidates from different parties and may show a preference between candidates of the same party

5.     Candidates who achieve the quota on their first preference are elected. When this happens, their second and subsequent preferences are redistributed among the other candidates

6.     When ore candidates achieve the quota by adding redistributed votes to their first preferences, their spare votes are also redistributed. This continues until no more candidates achieve the quota.

7.     When the required number of candidates have achieved the quota, counting ends

Advantages

·       More choice is given to the voters than any other voting system. This in turn, puts more power in the hands of the voters, rather than the party heads, who under other electoral systems can easily determine who is elected

·       Fewer votes are wasted

·       Most voters can identify a representative that they personally helped to elect. In turn, this strong link increases a representative’s democratic legitimacy and accountability. STV has the lowest amount of votes wasted

·       Under STV, has opposed to hybrid systems, all MP’s are elected on the same basis, thus lessening the chance of there being animosity between candidates.

·       No safe seats, candidates cannot be complacent

·       Giving voters the chance to rank candidates = most disliked candidates cannot win because they’re unlikely to pickup 2^nd or 3^rd preference

·       Strong constituency link

Disadvantages

·       In sparsley populated areas, STV could lead to massive constituencies

·       Process of counting results is long

·       Donkey voting

·       Voters only tend to come into contact with candidates at election times

·       Multi member constituency = Ballot paper huge and confused

·       Extremist parties do well than in FPTP

STV is used in elections in Northern Ireland

SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE (SV)

SV is a shortened version of AV. Under SV, there are 2 columns on the ballot paper, one for voters to mark their first choice and one to mark their second choice. How it works:

1.     Voters mark one ‘X’ in each column, voters are not required to make a 2^nd choice if they don’t wish to

2.     All first choices are counted. If a candidate has reached a majority, they are elected

3.     If no candidate receives a majority, the top 2 candidates continue to a second round and all other candidates are eliminated

4.     The second-choice votes of everyone whose first choice has been eliminated are then counted

5.     Any votes for the remaining candidates are then added to their first-round totals

6.     Whichever candidate has the most votes after the second preferences have been allocated is declared winner

London Mayor election – 3 May 2012

Candidate	1st Round Votes	%	2nd Round Votes
Boris Johnson (Con)	971,931	44.0	82.880
Ken Livingstone (Lab)	889,918	40.3	102,355
Jenny Jones (Green)	98,913	4.5	Eliminated
Brian Paddick (Lib Dem)	91,774	4.2	Eliminated
Siobhan Benita (Indept)	83,914	3.8	Eliminated
Lawrence Webb (UKIP)	43,274	2.0	Eliminated
Carlos Cortiglia (BNP)	28,751	1.3	Eliminated

Conservative total: 1,054,811

Labour total: 992,273

The turnout was 38.1%, a decrease from 45.3% in the previous election

Advantages

•      Gives the voter more power because both first and second preferences are taken into account
•      Ensures the winner has a majority and thus enhances democratic legitimacy of all candidates
•      Strong constituency link
•     Ensures strong and stable government because candidate wins with a majority
•     Keeps out extremists out

Disadvantages

•     Winning candidate does not necessarily require an absolute majority
•     SV strongly promotes voting for only candidates from the 3 main parties
•     Minor parties do pretty crap

SV is used in London Mayor elections and Police and Crime Commissioner elections in England and Wales

REGIONAL LIST SYSTEMS

A closed list system is one where there are no individual candidates. Instead, voters are offered a choice of political parties. There are two types of list systems – CLOSED and OPEN. List systems normally include a threshold device. The threshold is a minimum proportion of the total votes that a party must receive to win any seats, if a party fails to gain the threshold, it is eliminated, and its seat distributed among the other parties. This is done so extremist parties don’t win. Keep in mind the UK is split into regions.

OPEN LISTS: Voters choose individual candidates from the list provided by each party and individual candidates are elected according to the popular vote – Here voters can show a preference.

CLOSED LISTS: Voters vote for the party and therefore the list as a whole. Candidates are elected in order they appear on the list (as decided by the party) until all seats are filled.

Voters are invited to vote for one list and the seats are awarded to each party in exact proportion to the votes cast in each region.

Advantages

•      Guarantees a high degree of party proportionality
•      Every vote has equal value
•      Tend to involve large multi-member constituencies which give more opportunity for wider                  representation
•      Proportional Representation
•      Less wasted votes
•      Extremists are screwed

Disadvantages

•      Closed party lists = Undemocratic because the party decide which candidate gains the seats, not the        voters.
•      Voters = Little power in terms of choice and leaders – likely to put ‘safe’ candidates at the top of the      list
•      Impossible to stand as an independent
•      High proportional systems with minimal thresholds can result in unstable multi-party governments
•      Extremists can do OK

Closed regional lists are used for British elections to the EU Parliament

ADDITIONAL MEMBERS SYSTEM (AMS)

AMS is a hybrid system. It combines FPTP and regional list systems. This helps to overcome the disproportionality often associated with FPTP.

A proportional of the seats are awarded through FPTP. The rest are awarded on a closed regional list system. This means that every voter has two votes. One is for a constituency candidate in the normal FPTP method; the other is for a choice of party lists. This system produces a more proportional result than FPTP.

1.     2/3 of seats are elected using FPTP, other 1/3 of seats are elected on the basis of a closed regional list system.

2.     The variable top up system (some complex calculation) adjusts the proportion of votes cast on the list system

3.     The seats are awarded from the list systems are adjusted to give a more proportional result

4.     Parties that do less well in the constituencies (Greens and Conseratives usually) have their proportion of list votes adjusted upwards. Those that do proportionally well under FPTP (Labour) have their list votes adjusted downwards.

The overall effect of variable top ups is to make the total result as close to proportional of total votes cast in both ways.

Advantages

•      Broadly proportional – better and fairer representation of parties
•      Each voter has at least one effective vote out of the 2
•      Each voter has a directly accountable single

Disadvantages

•      Not entirely proportional
•      Extremist parties have greater representation – there was a BNP member in the previous London Assembly (2008-2012 Nick Griffin)
•      Can be awfully complicated

AMS is used in elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh and London Assembly

Electoral system	Benefits top two parties	Increase in nationalism	Turnout	Minor parties representation	Constituency link	Type of government produced
FPTP (Pluraity)	Yes	No	2010 – 65.2%	Poor representation	Strong	Single party
AV+SV (Majority)	Yes	No	SV – 2012 38.0%	Bad Representation	Strong for SV Weak for AV	Majority
Regional List + STV (PR)	Not necessarily	Yes/No Debatable	STV – 2011 54.9% 2009 – Regional – 34.4%	Fair because votes are transferred and its PR	Weak because quota is required and a lot of representatives exist	Multi party government
AMS (Hybrid)	Yes	Yes	2011 – Scotland 50.7% Wales 42.2%	Good representation	Strong	Minority government or two party coalition