voting behaviour and the media

• name the 5 electoral system


  AMS - additional member system

  
  

  SV -supplementary vote

  
  

  STV -single transferable vote

  
  

  FPTP - first past the post

  
  

  AV - alternative vote
• What is First past the post, type of system and where is it used in the UK


  It works through everybody getting one vote for a single Person in the area.

  The person with the greatest number of votes in the area is chosen as the represententative.

  
  

  It is a plurality system where you just need more than 1 than anybody else

  
  

  used in general elections, local councils, mayoral elections and police and crime comminsioner elections

  
  

  each seat or consituency has roughly 75,000 living in it - ched boundaries nov 2023
• What is a safe seat, example and why does FPTP exemplify this -- why is this bad


  Safe seats is when an constiutency has not changed hands in 42 years

  
  

  Ex is Liverpool Walton which in 2019 had 84.7% votes for Labour

  
  

  this is bad as may stop voting as they feel there vote will be wasted and not count. People do not go fro 1st preference but tacitcal vote against safe party

  
  

  Naddine dorries in mid bedforshire a tory stronghold lost due to a lack of care when she did not even live there and cared more for a Lordhsi[
• What is a marginal seat , example, and why FPTP makes this happen


  Bury North

  conservative won 46.2% vs 46% of labour vote

  
  

  Margin of 105 seats

  
  

  Very small easily could have changed

  
  

  Leads to tacitcal voting as people may vote for cons over lib dems as know they dont have a place

  
  

  Some constituency get far more attention, campaigning etc than others marginal vs safe seats and worse candidates

  
  

  - favours parties ike the SNp who can concentrate votes or the DUP.

  
  

  22% of seats in 2019 won of a margin of 10% or lower

  
  

  Close second places means the popular vote is spread too thinly.

  votes are not equal here as less of value if not in a marignal seat.
• So what are the featyres of FPTP


  two party system -duvengers lawsocial science theory that inevitably ends in two horse race as people give up ideal party to vote for party they don;t actually want

  ex 2017 election cons won a minority government even without majority as two horse race

  winners bonus-- get more seats in comparison to propotion of vote making unrepresentative of vote.

  1997 64% of seats to blair with only 43% of vote

  Bias to one major party -liverpool walton safe voting and tacitcal voting as people dont really vote for party they want

  Discrimination against smaller parties1983 - The SDP/Liberal alliance- Got 25% of nationally of vote but only 3% of seats : 23votes -- goes by regions than areas.2015 - UKIP3.8mil and green 1.1mil and only 2 a piece.

  Single party government- only one party in control of government despite most normally getting more votes than it // they make large majority policies with no alternate opinions.only ever 3 exceptions :2010,2017,1974- Stronger and always holds a majority
• Sheffield hallam example


  34.6% won despite more voting against them to actually get power
• Pos of FPTP


  - Simplicity- Strong & stable government -commanding majority to easily pass law. Only 3 coalition in 2017,2010 . Average 2 days to form gov vs belgium as an example takes 98 days as uses a propotional system as coaltions take time to form and agree of preferencesex belgiums 11 parties got a share of vote with no more than 20% so it took record 541 days to sort out deal : cant make big decisions on debt, covid decisions or defense (although wouldnt happen in UK as belgium has 3 different languages and is split in a different way than UK- A clear winner MPs like Maggie Thatcher or tony blair won big winners bonus' i.e 61% of seats with only 42% of vote in1983 allowing her to make big changing decisions if you view her as succesful (others may see her as a witch) same with Blair: 1997 63% of seats and only 42% of vote- claim strong mandate- Local representation.Deals with local issues to represent an area. - MPs directly accountable to electorate as only one person .- clear consitutnecy role one mp = one consituencyCan drive through policies and stop backbench rebels.- Keeps out extremist parties(BNP or reform UK extreme nationalist parties in 2015 elections Kingmakers are smaller parties when two majory parties rely on support to get in- although could argue that people can't see how stupid they are if not represented. They have Big tent votes with different faction and moderate ideas.- Ex germany SPD and GCU have to rely on smaller parties like greens or liberals for support_ arguable that extremist virws cn still pass through to gain attention and ''moderate'' views can escape like corbyns 2019 gov or suella braverman and rawnda policy- Has stood the test of timeVoters rejected a different system (AV) in the 2011 referendum (overwhelming rejected a system they didnt like rather than supported FPTP
• disadvantage


  - Disproportionality// wasted votes - votes wasted for thos who didnt vote for party and any additional votes winner gets45% of votes in 2019 were wasted adn 25% fruther surplus votes wasted- Wasted votes . 2015 5 million Green voters only got 1 mp and UKIP also winning only 1 MP - effectivly disenfranchised vs 37% of vote by conservatives with 51% of seats -- unfair winners bonus. -- Under propotional voters UKIP with 13% of vote would have one 81 seats and greens would have won 25 seats in 2015 and tories would only have around 240 seats - not a majority- leads to lack of turnout for exsouth downs vote only 32%voted for conservatives and only 62% turned up so only a 1/5 of area actually wanted them WEAK MANDATE THAT IS NOT LEGITIMATE- SNP won 48% of vote but 48/59 seats in scotland GE 2019

  Lack of strong and stable govMore recently the system hasn't produced stable majorities (e.g. 2010 / 2017). Had a coalition and minority government (goverment we didnt even vote for lib dems and conservative. colaition only took 3 days- 2019 there have been 3 PMS shows split and unstrong party- 2party system causes internal division like the brexit divide with cameron 81MPs against him

  local rep is bad- arhue that most Mps dont come from consituency area adn many may not share views or life expereicen of people in area- marginal votes they have less than 50% of constiuents vote so how can they represent them- most vote for party than canditate. only 34% of Mps in 2010 reciveved maj of vote

  Small parties struggle to break through and those more thinly spread out- The winning party often has <50% support in the country- greens ex have around 800,000 votes for 1 seat vs snp which have 1 seta for every 25,000 votes- safe seats no guarantee that mps will be good representatives or similar views to area
• What is SV?


  - voters are given a 1st and 2nd preference

  
  

  if someone gets 50% first time around they are elcted.

  If no one gets over 50% , all candidates drop out except top two. The second preferences of failed candidates are give to the top two and a majority winner is elected

  
  

  ex 2012 mayoral election first rounf

  : 44% boris

  : 40% ken livingstone

  Second round

  Boris : 51%

  Ken : 48%

  
  

  If was used for police and crime commisioners and london mayoral elections and for By elections of STV
• Pros of SV


  Representation/ less spoiled voteFewer wasted vote : more representation. Not implied support but definite support.- Succesful in voting popular canditate and also the majority representative form . More legitimacy and more mandate- Produces far fewer 'safe seats' where constituents are forgotten and so it is less democratic more attention to areas- stop vote splitting- No candidate got over 33 percent of first preferences on 35 occasions, meaning that in 17% of cases, nearly every 5 elections, at least twice as many voters preferred another candidate to the one who would have been elected under FPTP.simple- New desing in balloting in london mayoral election had higher invalid ballots than prior to greater manchester same SV system (1.8% in london mayor election rate of invalid votes)- Quite easy to understand.However, these rates are also improving. While only 35% of voters used a valid second preference in the first SV election in 2000, this number increased to 56% in the 2021 local elections. The message is simple: the more voters use SV, the more they understand its nuance.Choice- 2 preferences so gretare choice for people and more repsented

  helps create change and more legitimate gov- 70% of general election seats have had same party since 2010 elections vs 50% in SV vote despite fact they have been voted 3 times or less.
• Cons of SV


  Choiceo Don’t change anything – in 2021 2/39 elections have a different final outcome to the first outcome.safe seat would remain no london mayor has had second prefercnes change the winner350,000 second preferences wsster in 2012 mayoral eletions..- Does not solve main issues of FPTP : Not more propotional -- in a single election style.confusing- Can be argued as to be confusing: Higher invalid votes at only 0.4% vs 4.3% invalid in general elections but it is argued to just be a 'new' system that peopel will then understance.The Conservative government claims that SV is ‘overcomplicated and confusing’.

  The Institute for Government, an independent think tank, sayssecond class votes- More canditates mean there is a lower transfer rate : 3 candiates 76% was transferred vs 7 caditate on;y 36% was transferred which is not ideal- How can the winner lose? worthless votes fiven to worthless canditates. should have first choice windisadvantages small parties- System which is becoming mroe advantageous for two main parties labour got 2.4milllion extra votes vs independent or third party canditate only winning 951,000 extra.Leads to tactical voting as second choice will help either of the top two parties.- Only a likelihood of two parties winning still- Does not solve main issues of FPTP : Not more propotional -- in a single election style.- may not be able to form a gov if people dont choose second preference or chose a wasted party preference

  
  

  
  

  (overall similar positive and negs to FPTP as is a maoritarian system but is slightly more representativeNOT PROPOTIONAL
• How does AV differ to SV


  AV offeres more preferences and there can be several rounds till someone reaches 50%

  
  

  Aus uses but not necessarily accurate as voting is compulsory there and there system tends towards two parties of labour and liberal-national
• PRos and cons of AV


  Pros

  More representation and stops the spoiler effect : no vote is not spoiled.

  o May 2010 general election - AV would have cut 22 MPs from Tory and 10 from labour, but the lib dems would have been up 32 seats.

  o May 2010 general election - AV would have cut 22 MPs from Tory and 10 from labour, but the lib dems would have been up 32 seats.

  o May 2010 general election - AV would have cut 22 MPs from Tory and 10 from labour, but the lib dems would have been up 32 seats.

  Cons

  AV and FPTP suffer same issues though : trend towards two parties, not propotional, tactical voting.

  o 2021 retirement of countess of mar - took six rounds of voting - won by Londesbourgh with 147 votes.

  
  

  referendum 41% voted and voted against it.
• STV explained


  Northern Ireland Assembly

  -Local elections (Scotland and Northern Ireland)

  -Electing Deputy Speakers in the House of Commons

  -Some local councils in Wales*

  
  

  Propotional system as you can vote for more than one person

  
  

  Multimember consituencies entirely in regions where ballot has mutiple candiates from ay party and need droopformula

  
  

  • The first preference votes for each candidate are added up. Candidates who achieve this quota are elected.

  • Surplus votes from candidates who hit the quota go to second preference candidates.

  • Votes from the candidate with the fewest first preference votes who do not achieve the quota are eliminated. Their votes go to the second preference.

  • This process continues until all candidates have been elected.

  
• Example of STV


  North antrim - NI

  2011

  Party list : 4 candiates from DUP areas out of 11 candiates vs 1 member from sinn fein -- all eggs in one basket

  Running for 6 seats

  UUP won a seat of of 6% of vote vs 9% votitng for SDLP

  Unionist area likely to have many as second vote. SECOND PREFERNCES

  
  

  they do not want to split the vote of the Sinn fein as a unionist are 2022 Sinn Fein

  won 29% of the votes and 30%

  (27 out of 90) seats

  
• STV projection vs FPTP vote what can we say?

  Much more porptional but a minority govermnt which is weaker

  
  

  ALSO MUST CONSIDER THAT THIS IS SPECULATIVE people may vote differently under different systems

  
• Arguments in favour of STV


  - Propotional result

  - More accountable through more elections as can always change if unpopular.

  - More choice. Different people of the party -- votes make a difference increase participations.

  No safe seats or canditates

  STV can also bring about meaningful change in strong gov 2017 post unionist parties no longer held maj and DUP have under 30 seats needed to block laws opposing gay marriage

  - helps smaller party

  - prevents single party overly powerful government

  
• Argument against it


  - Confusing system and more complicated to ocount

  - Quota is different every go using the droop quota.

  - Expensive to shuffle system

  - Coalition and minority government in prevalent

  - Many more elections and coalitions and PMs -- lack of stability they have to rely on each other for a government. Endless conalition people lose faith in politics. 1 mp among many

  - Less local area representation as need larger constiruencies

  Extremist parties come in.

  - split vote very unfair

  -37 parties in the dutch elections which is too much choice

  - order of elimination can affect the winner massively in that the way votes are transferred and so this is too confusing and unfair

  - alphabetical voting : voting for party canditaes as in order a sthey are on seats

  STV - gridlock. Since 2015 neither Sinn fein or DUP can form a coalition together or work together so they have to have a budget from UK. Breaks link of consituents local links. Cannot be held to acocunt, who si to blame if something is to go wrong.
• overall stv


  Can be highly proportionalCreates competition for candidates from the same party, so they can be judged on their own strengthsSeveral representatives exist for peopleSingle Transferable Vote:DisadvantagesDegree of proportionality can varySingle-party, strong government is very unlikelyCould be divisive by creating competition between candidates from the same partyParty list
• What is AMS , where is it used?


  • the Scottish Parliament

  • The Welsh Parliament (Senedd Cymru)

  the London Assembly

  
  

  Voters are given two separte ballot paper votes.

  
  

  Plurality and propotional

  
  

  One = constituency votes which are done by FPTP system

  
  

  Additional members are elected throguh counting second ballot and peopel vote for party they want in The number of members elected from the list is based on the percentage of the votes cast but also takes into account the number of constituency members already elected in the region (using the D'Hondt method). This is designed to make the result more proportional to the number of votes cast.

  
  

  Dhondt formula = party with most votes on party list + 1 / divided by total votes
• How is it used is scotland and example


  129 seats in parliament

  
  

  56 regional and 73 MSP constituion

  
  

  ex Loathian snp won 7/9 seats depsite only winning 45% of vote

  
  

  overrepresetned so they then use the regional to balance

  
  

  0 in regional
• Positives and Negatives of AMS


  PROCan work and make strong govAMS coalitions have been relatively succesful in policy : tution fees in scoltand and under 25's free prescriptionMore choice: Voters have choice of party and representative and two preferencesFairer to all parties / proportional: 2016 Scottish Parliament elections saw a maximum difference of 5% between the voted received and the MSPs returned.

  in 2011 Scottish Parliament, Labour MPs got 20% constituency seats in FPTP for 31% of votes and following the variable top-up got 29% seats

  Green party gained two seats in the regionalist section but won none under the FPTP elections in 2011More views represented: coalition more likely so greater views.What is wrong, it encourages different vioces and opinions espically in ac divided country like britainLabour MP may take up different issues to conservative. Labour voters may not go to Conservative MP in times of need but may if there were different party and they might have different areas of focus within them labour for housing, conservative for small buisness. Multiple skills.

  Every vote counts: Although voters may find their chosen constituency candidate has little chance of winning, their second vote will help to elect a representative from the party of their choice.

  Allows voters to express a vote for a candidate without worrying about going against their partylocal representation as well involved.Can revive themselves more easily vs lib demsParties can renew themselves under AMS --> revival of Labour party in 2016 SPE.

  
• Dis of AMS


  Disadvantages of AMSComplex voting and outcome:- Elections are more complicated with two votes and in deciding which candidates are elected from the regional list.-Having several MSPs to represent each voter is confusing for some voters - cant be held to account// cannot choose some rep , party can increase diversity but we have no say whereas party has more power· Not too complicated – 0.57% of the vote was invalid.Coalitions more likely:- Coalition or a minority government(SNP 2006-2011), with compromise politics, is more likely as it is difficult, although not impossible, for one party to form a majority government. heyfailed for example topass a law on Alcohol Minimum Pricing in2010 because opposition MSPs (mostlyLabour) voted against it.Not most proportional system:Although AMS is a p(PR) system, it is not the most proportional of systems. For example, the SNP received around 44% of the vote in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election but returned 49% of MSPs (63 out of 129) while the Liberal Democrats received around 7% of the vote but only returned 5 MSPs (4%). -- winners bonus can stil happejntactial :preferred third party to those who need top up votes : alba votes to create pro independent pro independent vote by alex salmondtension in two representative :those who are accountable ot the people and those who are accountable to the party . SOme spend more time on constituency and some more on national leevlParties control regional lists: Second vote is used to select representatives from a list to make the overall result . proportional. However, it is the political parties which decide the order of the candidates on the list.

  Need good balance : more local rep or rep of the people.

  Sctoland still main party SNP always wins there is just others with more of a vote
• How would UK elections be more represative under AMS

  
• Referndums against


  1) re3duce representaation and cause my havoc : tyranny of the majority in referndums can mean that minorities and its very yes/no system is devisive in reflecting actual views of people. Causes a greater split in people . only 18% young people chose to leave but they have to. Not able to vote for certain minorities so they are not represented. Natural leaders can influence and dominate decisions.

  2) decisions are not always decivisve and not always accepted. The decisions cannot be changed despite the fact that peoples opinions may change over time : many would vote remain after brexit yet it cannot be changed.

  3) not always increase participation : AV was poorly campagined for many people did not understand what it was and only 41% voted

  4) gov undermined. 2PMs and many mps lost in brexit and undermines representative democracy.

  
  

  people often are not educated enough on issues and a simple yes/no is not enough for complicated issues. in scottish ref 2015 there was yes/no but the most supported by 36% was the deicision for no but with a scottish devolved parliament powers but this was not even given as an option. 92% poll by full facts said they want in of EU : unrepresentative and gives no background to arguments

  
  

  Lies during campaigns, oversimplified media : 350million extra a week to NHS. 1/4 felt lied to post brexit. Also they work of their own personal intrest instead of an elected individual that works on behalf of a large groups of opinions : more qualified. Bristol council wanted to increase taxes for increasin spending on schools. vast maj voted to keep tax rate the same : popularvote not always right vote

  
  

  5) they can act as opinion polls for government : 2011 AV vote lib dems support dropped after promise of tution fees drop never took place in colaition so people were dissatsified l
• Also gov spending on ref


  dont have to have equal funding so some have more influence than others

  
  

  expensive : 75million for 2011 av ref

  
  

  during AV no cmapign spent over 3.4million vs yes which spent around 2.2million

  
  

  2012 police and crime commisioners had 194 candiates so they could not all get free postage as cost would be 35million so funding was completly down to themselves

  
  

  8.6 million freepost leaflets, at a cost of just under £1.5 million. Meanwhile,

  the 'No to AV' sent out over 40 million leaflets at a cost of almost £6.7 million in public money
• Also how does gov influence referndums


  They can choose at what time the referendums are to be held at

  
  

  for example, they held the 2011 AV referudnm on same day as the loca lcouncil elections which meant local councils could not cmapiagn for yes or no but rather for there own seat

  
  

  Similarly , scottish referdum was held after Cameron announced that he would devolve powers to scottish body if they voted no.
• Referendums for


  1) Unite communities and deal with arguments at hand : since they are legitmate as everybody in the country has a vote towards important issues such mas AV vote or the good friday agreement -94% voted pro as ratify and 71%// CONSERVATIVES WERE UNITED AFTER BREXIT REFERNDUM AS A PARTY TO GET BREXIT DONE. (before there was tensions)

  67% against electoral reform

  2) legitimate and fair as people have direct say but argue tyranny of majcan take place . 80% of MPs wanted to remain

  2) decisive much quicker decisions as depends on country , there in no scrutiny and time then UP WITHIN PARLIAMENT AND IT GIVES A YES/NO ANSWER

  3) educative impacts : gets people involved in politcs and increases participation numbers as it gets people intrested as therer vote can be seen to actaully make an impact directly. : // 75% were involved in brexit votes, 16-17 were allowed in scottish referndum AND 75% PARTICIPATED SND IN A POLL 97% SAID THEY WOULD VOTE AGAIN. -- only 67% ini 2019 vs 85% in scottish ref. 81% in irish referendum

  4) stop hard or unpopular decisions. Entre enches parliament into decisions as even tho legally parliament is sovreign politically to not pass a referndum decisions would cause public outcry i.e Brexit being voted on they have to pass it through. They also get a wide perpsectice of views on devisive issues

  
  

  5) Electoral commision gorup post act 2000 means that they give free postage to anyside of referendum, give 600,000 to each campaign to fairly give influence + post information on the referundum to all homes. They also say any donations over 7500 to campaigns to signify hidden agenda to public however do not have abilities to add options to ref such as devo max on scot referendum

  
  

  they create an ubnbiased question : alex salmond wanted do you agree scotland should be independent THIS IS TOO BIASED
• Good Friday agreement 1998 ref


  What was the result?

  Majority 71% were pro and turnout was high at 81%

  
  

  it was held to get consensus over good friday agreement of northern irish devolution and deals to stop troubles and lead to peace in NI and UK

  
  

  What was debate

  - It was divisive as some unionists from parties like the DUP and UKUP believed they fell short on the deal as northern ireland became more independent from the UK and similarly republicans who wanted a fully independent Ireland also believed there goal in the agreement was not reached

  - Everyday citizens also who had lived through the troubles felt that the release of political prisoners who had been technically murders and arsonists was not just and fair retribution

  - IRA members had to decommission all weapons as well and this for many was a devisive matter.

  However the majority of people believed that this agreement was necessary to stop the conflict within Northern Ireland

  
  

  V good political affect

  - It had a large political affect as it effectively stopped the troubles and major conflict between the IRA , Britain and unionists which had been ongoing for 30 years.

  It had greater legitimacy in the deal through having public support strengthening the agreement and making the agreement between NI and Eng less devisive and rejected.
• 1998 greater london authority


  There was very little debate surrounding the referendum, most saw it as a foregone conclusion that it would end up being successful which can be seen with the low voter turnout. There is an argument that mayor's can become controversial due to the vast power that they wield, but that didn't necessarily come into the electorates mind when voting.

  
  

  What was the result?

  34.1% - SO ONLY AROUND 24% VOTED FORturnout with 72% for and 28% against.

  
  

  All Burroughs voted in favour of the mayor.

  
  

  What political effect did this have?

  It meant that greater London got their own city council with their own mayor, in doing so meaning that the people of the city become better represented with a specific council to deal with their problems. It was a great PR success for the Blair government and gave London an assembly that would be elected every 5 years. It also led to a scramble for a "new labour" candidate.

  
  

  
  

  -- shows people dont turn up when it doesnt really matter
• Scottish DEvolution


  Why was it held?

  The Scottish devolution referendum of 1997 was held as a fulfilment of a Labour Party manifesto commitment. It aimed to gauge public support for the creation of a Scottish Parliament with devolved powers, as well as whether the Parliament should have tax-varying powers.

  What was the debate?

  The debate centred around two key proposals:

  Whether there should be a Scottish Parliament.

  Whether the Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers.

  What was the result?

  The result was "Yes-Yes," indicating majority support for both proposals. A significant number of voters agreed that there should be a Scottish Parliament, and that the Parliament should have tax-varying powers. Turnout 60%, result = 75% for, 25% against.

  What political effect did this have?

  In response to the majority "Yes" vote, the UK Parliament passed the Scotland Act 1998, establishing a Scottish Parliament with devolved powers. This marked a significant development in Scottish political history. The devolved Parliament convened in May 1999. The political landscape saw shifts, with the Labour Party fulfilling its manifesto commitment and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament contributing to changes in governance. The Scottish National Party (SNP) renewed its calls for independence, while the "No" campaign expressed concerns about the potential break-up of the Union. Overall, the referendum had a profound impact on the political structure and discourse in Scotland.
• What are the main areas of a good electoral system


  Simplicity : FPTP wins this outrigtht

  
  

  However many could argue that voters do not need to undertsand how they are counted and rather can easily understand the way they need to vote. We understand confusing tech why not this

  
  

  
  

  Representative

  
  

  
  

  Strong and stable gov : Single party maj gov. FPTP should win this as it can form a quick gov with a large maj, decisions can be easily passed through without gridlock to support the mandate
• majoritarian vs plurality vs propotion


  Maj : need over 50%

  
  

  Plurality : need more than 1 of the next

  
  

  propotionl : propotional to vote