Elections and Voting Systems. What are the main advantages and disadvantages?. Different systems in UK. There are FOUR voting systems in use in the UK at the moment. The First Past The Post (FPTP ) is used for UK General Elections.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
What are the main advantages and disadvantages?
There are FOUR voting systems in use in the UK at the moment.
The First Past The Post (FPTP) is used for UK General Elections.
The Additional Member System (AMS) is used for Scottish parliament elections.
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is used for Scottish Local authority elections.
The Party List system used for European parliament elections
649 “mini” elections go on, one in each constituency (“seats”)
The party that wins the most seats gets, or gets “first past the post” or half of 649 seats, wins the election.
FPTP usually produces a decisive result which gives a Government a clear majority to deliver it’s election promises over a five year period. This happened with Tony Blair’s clear victories in 1997, 2001 and 2005.
FPTP also enable by elections to occur during the term of a Parliament. This allows voters to express their dis-satisfaction with the Government of the day, if they choose. For example, by elections to register protest e.g. Glasgow East 2008, Norwich 2009.
A third advantage is that voters have just the one representative who is responsible for their constituency.
Hung parliaments do happen under FPTP. FPTP can create coalition governments as well.
Did anyone vote for a coalition?
Do we get a fair result? In 2005, Labour achieved just 36% of the popular vote yet governed the country for five years. Is this fair?
FPTP usually creates strong government. But is strong government good government e.g. Would we have had Poll the Iraq war if Labour had to share power?
FPTP has created many safe seats for Labour and Conservative parties. It is estimated that 382 out for the 649 Commons seats are “safe”. Why bother voting if you live in one of these seats?
AMS is Used for Scottish Parliament elections. It is a hybrid of FPTP and PR systems.
The Scottish parliament has129 MSPs; 73 constituency MSPs and 56 Regional “List” MSPs.
Voters vote twice; The 1st vote elects a constituency MSP, the 2nd vote elects Regional List MSPs
AMS gives smaller parties a chance of representation. If 5% of voters vote Green, why should the Greens not have 5% of the representation?
Given Scottish voting patterns it is unlikely that any one party will have complete control Parliament. Which should mean that politicians will need to talk to each other, listen and compromise.
Every vote counts. Even in “safe” seats, there is an incentive to vote.
In 1999 and 2003 Scottish Parliament elections, Labour won the most seats but did not have an overall majority. Labour and the Liberal Democrats entered into a coalition to run Scotland
In 2007, the SNP won the most seats and again did not have an overall majority. It could not agree on terms for a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and has governed as a minority government on an issue by issue basis
The AMS does not guarantee that one party will dominate, but given Scottish voting behaviour, it makes one party domination highly unlikely
AMS produces “unelected” MSPs. For example, the SNP’s List MSP Stefan Tymkewycz resigned just a few weeks after becoming an MSP. There was no by-election. Instead the SNP could choose any party member to replace him as an MSP. It chose Shirley-Anne Sommerville. Does this make the party machine more powerful than voters?
MSP turf wars. Do List MSPs tread on the turf of constituency MSPs, who think of themselves as the real MSP?
Voters place an “X” on the constituency ballot paper for the party/individual they want to voter for
Voters then place an “X” on the regional ballot paper for the party they want to vote for
Should be dead simple..
In 2007, there were an estimated 142,000 “lost” votes. Why?
Voters were confused by having two elections on same day (Scottish parliament and local council elections) which used two different voting systems.
There was also a single ballot paper for the two votes for the Scottish Parliament election which again confused voters.
STV was introduced in Scotland in 2007 for the local Government elections.
STV has multi member constituencies.
Voting is easy. Voters rank candidates 1 – whatever, in order of preference. They can vote for different members of the same party or vote for different parties. It is up to the voter.
All votes count. STV voting is highly proportional. So voters should get what they voted for.
STV ends “safe seats”, giving new or previously disadvantaged parties a greater chance.
STV empowers voters, not political parties. Voters have multiple choices, not just one vote.
STV means that deadbeat politicians can be rejected by the voters. No politician can take their seat for granted. In these days of expense scandals, representatives need to be more accountable.
It is harder for smaller parties to be elected than with the AMS. The “threshold to be elected in higher.
Multi members could, in theory, confuse voters. Who does a voter go to? If he/she goes to one Councillor will the others be offended?
STV often leads to coalition government. This, in theory, could create unrepresentative and potentially unpleasant “kingmakers”.
“PR systems are complicated” (they’re not),
“it takes ages to add up the votes” (not that long!)
“FPTP avoids coalitions”. It doesn’t!