electoral systems

• Proportional electoral system


  An electoral system in which the number of seats held by a political group or party in a legislative body is determined by the number of popular votes received
• First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system


  A plurality system used for elections to the UK Parliament, and to English and Welsh local governments
• Proportional electoral system


  Provides greater representation and fairness to the electorate
• First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system

  • Considered unrepresentative, as candidates can be elected with a very small share of the votes while all other votes cast in the constituency are wasted
  • Often results in a winner-takes-all scenario where a party can win a majority of seats with less than a majority of the popular vote, potentially leading to a less representative government
  • Tends to produce more stable governments with single-party majorities, which can lead to decisive governance but may also result in governments that don't represent the views of the majority of voters
• Proportional Representation (PR)


  • Fosters inclusivity by ensuring smaller parties gain representation, resonating with diverse voter interests
  • Increases voter engagement, as individuals feel their voice matters
  • Often necessitates coalition governments, promoting compromise and policy diversity, which can inspire confidence and combat voter apathy
• First Past the Post (FPTP)


  • Often produces strong majority governments, enabling decisive action and clearer accountability
  • With single-party dominance, there's less need for extensive coalition-building, reducing the risk of legislative gridlock
  • Provides a strong link between MPs and their constituencies due to the relatively small size of most FPTP constituencies and the fact that a single MP is responsible for representing those who live within the constituency
• Supplementary Vote (SV) electoral system

  • Offers more choice than First Past the Post (FPTP) by allowing voters to express a first and second preference
  • If no candidate receives a majority, second preferences are counted, potentially leading to a broader range of candidates being considered
  • Enhances voter representation and minimises wasted votes more effectively than FPTP
• Supplementary Vote (SV) electoral system

  • Tends to create fewer safe seats compared to other electoral systems like First Past the Post (FPTP)
  • Encourages candidates to appeal to a broader base beyond their traditional support, leading to more competitive races in constituencies where no candidate secures a majority on the first preference votes
• Additional Member System (AMS)

  • Voters cast two votes: one for a local representative and another for a political party
  • Allows voters to support a local candidate from one party with their first vote, while using their second vote to back a different party, typically via a regional or national party list
  • Empowers voters to express nuanced preferences and supports a broader range of representation
• Additional Member System (AMS)


  • Can be confusing for voters due to the presence of multiple representatives
  • Ensures fairness to all parties by delivering a more proportional outcome, but is not the most precise method for achieving perfect proportionality
  • Empowers voters to have a meaningful impact on the outcome of the election, promoting a more inclusive and representative democracy
  • Grants parties considerable power in shaping the composition of the parliament, diminishing individual voter influence in candidate selection
• First Past the Post (FPTP)


  • A simple plurality system where voters cast a single vote, and the person with the largest number of votes in a constituency is elected
  • Tends to produce a strong and stable government with a clear majority in the House of Commons and a strong mandate to govern
• Safe seats


  • The same political party retains the seat from election to election, which can result in "tactical voting" and vote wastage
  • Effectively disenfranchise and demotivate voters, and reduce the political importance of the areas concerned when it comes to allocating resources and framing policy
  • Create complacent MPs with 'jobs for life' who are free to take voters for granted
• The Westminster electoral system has historically followed the First Past the Post System (FPTP), this is a plurality system whereby the UK is split up into 650 different constituencies – each of which elect a representative for their constituency
• The state of the current Westminster electoral system has been argued to have created a democratic deficit
• FPTP can be argued to not be representational, and so this reduces the democratic aspect of everyone being represented by the government
• FPTP allows a two-party domination, which are the Labour Party and the Conservative Party
• In 2015 UKIP won nearly 4 million votes and the Green Party won just over 1 million votes, but they won only one MP each in the election
• The Party List System will increase and improve representation because each party is granted seats in proportion to the number of popular votes it receives
• STV also gives almost absolute proportionality, as there is a close correlation between votes and seats
• If the electoral system used by Westminster is changed to the Party List system or STV

  There would be more representation of the voters, which would enhance UK democracy
• STV is not fully proportional, as in large multi-member constituencies, the link between the member and the voters may be weak
• In the Part List system, the link between representatives and constituencies is also weakened, and therefore there is no clear constituency representative
• FPTP provides a strong link between MPs and their constituencies
• FPTP provides a limited voter choice
• The prevalence of safe seats means that many voters have little hope of seeing their favourite candidate win
• In the run-up to the 2015 general election the Electoral Reform Society estimated that 364 seats, 56% of the total, were safe seats
• The Electoral Reform Society also calculated that 74.4% of votes cast in the 2015 election were wasted
• STV allows for the almost absolute proportionality and there are limited/almost no wasted votes
• AMS allows voters to vote for a candidate for their constituency and for a regional candidate
• A change in the electoral system to AMS or STV

  Would enhance UK democracy as it would increase voter participation
• STV is too complicated and requires a high level of political education
• AMS may also reduce participation as smaller parties achieve less representation
• FPTP has been used in Westminster for a very long time, and therefore the public are aware of how the system works and so it is easier and less confusing to use
• If FPTP is removed then there would not be any 'safe seats' and the seats can be more proportioned according to votes
• STV is extremely proportional and this will allow for there to be a clear representation of all the voters, as well as allowing for smaller parties to be able to compete for a place in government and for more seats
• SV would not break the two-party system because 50% of the votes are needed in order for a candidate to secure government, and therefore minority parties will not be able to reach the 50% target
• In the 2016 London Mayoral Elections, it was the Labour party, Sadiq Khan, and the Conservative party, Zac Goldsmith, that managed to reach a high number of votes of 44% for Labour and 35% for Conservative
• A change to the Westminster electoral system will not enhance UK democracy, as FPTP has been a system that has allowed for the UK to be democratic so far, and therefore, there already is and enhancement in democracy