electoral systems (done)

• Proportionality Lack of representation in constituencies - MPs do not have majority support

  EG. 2024 Lab Terry Jermy SW Norfolk with 26.7% of vote, only 15.7% of constit voted for him

  
  

  Translates into lack of prop at a national level + winners bonus

  EG. 2024 Lab won 411 (63%) seats with just 33.7% of the vote BUT 2019 worst result in modern history with 202 seats, but got 32% of vote

  
  

  In contrast 2011 Scot Parl vote using AMS, SNP got 45% of vote and 53% of seats
• Favours parties with geographically conc support 

  • Massively under represents minor parties with widespread support, Cons rural and Lab rural
  • EG. 2024 reform 14.3% of vote but only 5 seats, Lib dem’s had more widespread support in 2024 so won 72 seats with 12.2% of vote BUT 2019 Lib dem’s won 11.5% of vote but only 11 seats - electoral reform society calculated that if done with STV, lib dem’s would’ve got 59 seats in 2019
  • EG. 2015 UKIP won 3.9 mil votes but only one MP, but SNP which has more conc support in Scotland got 1.4mil votes and gained 56 MPs
• Close MP-constit link

  • Effective rep of local interests 
  • EG. 2023 22 Cons MPs supported Lab amendment aimed at speeding up compensation for victims of infected blood scandal, rebelling against 3 line Cons whip to do so, backbenchers such as Caroline Nokes, this was influenced by large no of victims in her constit
  • EG. Study by HOC found that MPs handle approx 300-500 emails per week
  • EG. Lab MP Quershi for Bolton SE reported that her team had handled over 4k issues raised by constituents in first half of 2021, relating to COVID and mental health consequences 
• Exclusion of extremist parties 

  • Unlikely to succeed in FPTP
  • EG. 2010 extreme right wing BNP won 2% of national vote, but didn’t finish any higher than 3rd in any constituency, therefore won no seats - in contrast in 2009 EuroParl elections using closed party list system, won 6% of vote and 2 seats 
• Limited voter choice 

  • Only one vote for one party, limits ability to show full political preference 
  • Unlike AMS where voters get 2 votes, one for party and one for constituency member, this also helps smaller parties 
  • EG. 2021 Scot Parl elections, Greens won 1.3% constituency votes, but 8.1% top up votes, so 8 seats overall 
• Wasted votes + Tactical voting 

  • Votes for the MP that doesn’t win are effectively wasted
  • EG. 2017 nationally over 22 mil votes had no impact on result and had gone to waste 
  • In order to prevent their vote from being wasted, public resorts to tactical voting, not voting for their preferred party, but the party that has the greatest chance of defeating their least preferred party 
  • EG. YouGov data suggested that 2019 32% of voters voted tactically 
  • EG. PG MakeVotesMatter reported that 2024 ⅕ intended to vote tactically 
  • In a proportional system such as STV, voters rank their preferences, tactical voting is not a problem 
• Votes of unequal value

  • Votes in marginal seats seen as more important than those in safe seats, leading to higher turnout and more campaign forces in these constituencies 
  • EG. A highly important marginal seat would be Thanet South, with the governing party winning a seat in every general election since its creation 
  • In safe seats, voters have little hope of seeing a different party succeed in their constituency, leading to lower turnouts and little campaign focus in these constituencies
  • EG. Before 2024, ⅔ of the seats in the Uk were considered safe as 225 constituents had not changed hands since 1950 or before - although this was shattered by Labour majority recently 
  • The expenses scandal also revealed a direct correlation between an likelihood of an MP serving a safe seat and them fiddling their expenses - suggesting safe seats cause incompetence
• Easy to use 

  • Simple selection, voters have to pick their preferred candidate and one vote needed 
  • Result usually declared early in the morning after polling day 
  • Public support
  • EG. 2011 AV ref where 68% voted against changing the electoral system on a 42% turnout 
  • More complicated can lead to donkey voting 
  • EG. 2019 local elections in NI, where there were 2 candidates from the same party, the candidate whose name appeared first on the ballot paper was elected 85% of the time, whereas the candidate who appeared second was elected 54% of the time 
  • Suggesting confusion and that voters picked the first candidate from their preferred party rather than their preferred candidate 
• Produces strong govs

  • Single party govs can pass laws more effectively since they have a strong mandate and can bring about effective change 
  • EG. 1997 landslide victory gave Lab the chance to carry out key constitutional changes 
• Contrasts govs created by proportional systems

  • Generally weak minorities or coalitions which can cause compromised policies which may be a struggle to implement 
  • EG. Breakdown of Scottish gov in 2024 where the SNP first minister ended coalition agreement with Greens after their criticisms of SNP in abandoning key climate policies and pausing prescription of puberty blockers to young people - led to vote of no confidence and resignation of SNP first minister 
  • Conflicts in NI which used STV
  • EG. Suspended for 2 years after DUP refused to go into coalition with Sinn Fein 
• FPTP has also led to weak/ coalitions 

  • Weak govs 
  • EG. 2010 coalition, 2017 confidence and supply agreement with Cons and DUP
  • EG. May and Boris suffering defeats over Brexit 
  • Compromise shouldn’t be seen as a negative, not all coalitions are weak 
  • EG. Scottish govs have been able to pass legislation,compromise leads to better more representative policy outcomes