Electoral Systems

• Safe seat


  A constituency where it is almost certain that the same party will win the seat at every general election
• The Electoral Reform Society estimated that 316 seats out of 650 were safe seats in 2019, representing nearly half the country
• Implications of safe seats

  • Parties will pay little attention to safe seats in the election campaigns, so voters will receive less information
  • MP sitting for such seats are less accountable for their actions because they have virtually no chance of losing their seat at the next election
  • Voters in safe seats may feel their votes are "wasted" because they have no realistic chance of influencing the outcome
  • Votes in safe seats are worth less than votes in seats that are keenly contested, where voters may have more of an impact
• The Electoral Reform Society estimated that in the 2019 general election, 70.8 per cent of the voters, numbering 22.6 million, were effectively casting "wasted" votes because they had no role in influencing the outcome in their constituencies
• Marginal seat


  A seat where the outcome of an election is in doubt and the seat is likely to change hands from one party to another quite frequently
• In the 2019 general election there were 141 marginal seats in the UK, defined as one where the last winning candidate led by 10 per cent or less from the nearest challenger
• Implications of marginal seats

  • Parties concentrate their efforts on marginal seats, so voters there receive much more attention and information
  • Votes in marginal seats are more valuable than votes in safe seats as the voters in marginal seats are more likely to influence the result
  • The individual candidates become more important in marginal seats
• Tactical voting


  A voter who supports a party that is unlikely to win a constituency switches allegiance to one of the other parties in the hope of influencing the outcome, usually by blocking the less favoured party
• Arguments for retaining FPTP

  • It is easy to understand and produces a clear result in each constituency
  • The result is usually known very quickly
  • It produces one single representative for each constituency and so creates a close constituency-MP bond
  • The accountability of the individual MP is clear to the electors
  • It tends to produce a clear winner in a general election, ie a single party with a parliamentary majority
  • It helps to promote strong, stable, decisive government
  • It helps to prevent small parties breaking in to the system
• Arguments against retaining FPTP

  • The outcome is not proportional or fair. Some parties win more seats than their support warrants, while others win fewer than they deserve
  • It means that many votes are effectively wasted because they can have no impact on the outcome in safe seats
  • Many seats become part of party heartlands, where there is no possibility of a realistic challenge from other parties. It also produces electoral deserts, where there is effectively no party competition
  • Votes are of unequal value in that votes in safe seats are less valuable than votes in marginal seats
  • It encourages some voters to vote tactically and so abandon the party they really want to support
  • It has, since 1945, always resulted in the winning party securing much less than half the popular vote. This calls into question the legitimacy of the government
• Additional Member System (AMS)


  A hybrid system that combines FPTP with a proportional representation system, where a proportion of the seats are awarded through FPTP and the rest are awarded by a regional closed party list system
• In Scotland, 73 seats are elected by the FPTP method while 56 are elected by the list system. In Wales, 40 seats are constituency-based and 20 decided by the list system
• Advantages of AMS


  • It produces a broadly proportional outcome and so is fair to all parties
  • It gives voters two votes and so more choice
  • It combines preserving constituency representation with a proportional outcome
  • It helps small parties that cannot win constituency contests
• Drawbacks of AMS


  • It produces two classes of representative - those with constituencies and those elected through the lists, with the latter tending to be senior
  • It is more complex than first-past-the-post. Having two votes can confuse some voters
  • It can result in the election of extremist candidates
• The seats on the regional list system in the Scottish Parliament elections are manipulated to produce a more proportional result
• There are different types of elections, including general elections (to choose members of parliament), local government elections (for councillors), European Parliamentary elections (for MEPs), referendums (on specific issues), and by-elections (when a seat becomes vacant).
• Elections are held to select representatives who will make decisions on behalf of constituents or citizens.
• The electoral system is the mechanism by which voters cast their ballots, and it can have an impact on political representation.
• Elections have various functions such as choosing representatives, legitimizing governments, providing accountability, promoting political participation, and expressing public opinion.
• Voting systems include First Past The Post (FPTP), Alternative Vote (AV), Additional Member System (AMS), Single Transferable Vote (STV), Proportional Representation (PR), and Majority Voting.
• Voting systems determine how many people get elected and which party wins power.