Cards (27)

    • introduction
      It is argued that some electoral systems provide more effective representation than others. This essay will discuss this by comparing FPTP (First Past the Post) and AMS (Additional Member System) on the aspects of the link between the electorate and their representatives, the representation of smaller parties and the type of government that is usually produced.
    • FPTP - representation
      FPTP is argued to be good for representation as it provides a good link between constituents and their MP. Voters are choosing a candidate and know that the person with the most votes will be the winner. For example, constituents in Paisley are represented by Johanna Baxter.
    • FPTP - representation analysis
      This is important because it means that voters can hold their MP accountable for their actions and can choose to vote for or against them at the next election.
    • FPTP - representation limits
      However, under FPTP those who did not vote for the MP that is elected can feel like their votes have been wasted. In addition, the MP can be elected with less than half of the votes in the constituency, as under FPTP they just must win more voters than any other candidate.
    • FPTP - representation limits analysis
      This is therefore not representative of what most voters wanted. For example, Alison Taylor won Paisley North with only 47% of the votes, meaning many people voted against her than for her.
    • AMS - representation
      Meanwhile AMS can be seen to be better than FPTP for representation as voters are represented by 1 constituency MSP and 7 regional MSPs, not just one person.
    • AMS - representation analysis
      This is significant for representation because more voters will feel that their views are represented in parliament as the 8 MSPs are likely to be from a range of parties.
    • AMS - representation limits
      However, there are problems as constituents often know their constituency MSP but not their regional MSPs, making it difficult for them to hold them accountable for their actions. For example, many people in Paisley South know that George Adam is their constituency MSP but are unaware of who their 7 regional MSPs are.
    • representation - evaluation
      In evaluation, AMS is better for representation in terms of the link between voters and their representatives. This is because although the 7 regional MSPs might not be well known, people still have 8 MSPs and so more chance of being represented by someone that they agree with than under FPTP where there is only 1 MP per constituency.
    • FPTP - representing smaller parties
      It is also argued that FPTP is not as representative for smaller parties due to the fact they tend to get a lot of votes throughout the country but not enough concentrated support to win many constituencies. For example, in 2024, Reform won 14.3% of the votes but only 0.7% of seats
    • FPTP - representing smaller parties analysis
      This is significant because smaller parties will argue that people will not vote for them because they see it as a wasted vote and are more likely to vote for larger parties instead. This not only causes the smaller parties to lose votes but also leads to voters to feel as if their votes are being wasted.
    • FPTP - representing smaller parties further
      Another reason FPTP is not representative for smaller parties is the fact that under FPTP the party in power often has minority support. Since 1945, the winning party in every election has received less than half of the total votes throughout the country, for example, Labour gained 56% of the seats in the House of Commons but only won 44% of the votes
    • FPTP - representing smaller parties further analysis
      This is extremely significant because many people would not have voted for the party in power and will not agree with their views and opinions, which can lead to voters to feel as if their voices are not being heard under FPTP.
    • AMS - representing smaller parties
      On the other hand, AMS is seen to be better than FPTP for representing smaller parties as they have a better chance of winning seats due to the second vote. AMS therefore provides a more proportional result. For example, in the 2021 general election the Green Party won 2.7% of the votes and won 8 seats.
    • AMS - representing smaller parties analysis
      This is extremely significant as people who voted for smaller parties will have their views represented when these parties are elected.
    • AMS - representing smaller parties limits
      However, AMS is not always beneficial for smaller parties as it entirely depends on how people use their votes. For example, between 2011 and 2016 there were only 3 MSPs from smaller parties in parliament
    • AMS - representing smaller parties limits analysis
      This is important because it means that if no one from smaller parties is elected the issues that they face will remain ignored and nothing will be done to address these issues.
    • representing smaller parties - evaluation
      In evaluation, AMS is better for representation in terms of representing smaller parties. This is because AMS provides the second vote which allows for a better chance of being elected for smaller parties while FPTP only allows a ‘winner takes all’ vote.
    • FPTP - government produced
      Regarding the types of government usually produced, FPTP often produces a clear winner with a majority in the House of Commons. For example, in the 2024 election the Labour won 411 seats compared with Conservatives who won 121 seats.
    • FPTP - government produced analysis
      This system is unlikely to result in a coalition government which is very significant as it means government will be able to pass the laws that it wants and the voters who voted for the parties can expect quick and clear decisions.
    • FPTP - government produced limits
      However, when FPTP does produce a coalition government it means that parties in coalition must compromise with each other which may mean that they break some promises that they made to voters during the election campaign. For example, the Lib Dems promised to abolish university tuition fees in the 2010 general election campaign, but when they formed a coalition government with the Conservative Party didn’t support this policy at all, resulting in the Lib Dems having to abandon it.
    • FPTP - government produced limits analysis
      This is highly significant because many voters will be left unhappy as they voted for these parties because of the polices they felt best represented them, only for these polices to be abandoned and for them and their views to feel unrepresented and betrayed.
    • AMS - government produced
      Although FPTP is unlikely to lead to a coalition government, AMS has a much higher chance. For example, between 1999 and 2003 Labour and the Liberal Democrats formed a coalition government. A coalition government can lead to consensus politics as decisions are made through discussion and compromise. For example, it is argued that the Labour-Lib Democrats coalition was successful as 66 bills were made into laws.
    • AMS - government produced analysis
      This is important as it means if no party won the majority, then not a lot of people would want them in charge and coalition governments would allow more people's views to be represented. Still, a coalition government isn’t always good.
    • AMS - government produced further
      They can be criticized as they can be weak and indecisive. For example, the previous Labour-Lib Democrat coalition were formed through the bargaining within the parties themselves. Under AMS it is also possible that no party gets a majority in parliament, but no one wants to join in a coalition.
    • AMS - government produced further analysis
      This is significant because coalition governments will be unable to make decisions and nothing will get done which leads to no one's votes being represented.
    • conclusion
      In conclusion, while FPTP usually doesn’t lead to a coalition government but AMS does, they are both equal in representing the electorate because they both have their own advantages and disadvantages and neither are better than the other.