Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
44 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
How & Where does the First Past the Post system work? |
WESTMINSTER 1) The country is split up into 650 different constituencies where in each they vote for their specific MP from a party. Everyone gets only ONE vote for one candidate 2) The candidate who gets the most votes is chosen to be the MP and this is repeated across each of the constituencies and that group goes on to form parliament |
|
|
What are the advantages of the First Past the Post system? |
1) It produces strong and stable one party governments who can complete all aspects of their manifesto 2) It is a very simple and quick system that is easily explained and doesn't require any expensive vote counting machines or the like 3) It keeps out extremist parties as they are unlikely to ever get enough support in one concentrated area to have any representation 4) It keeps the strong link between MP's and their constituents as ultimately they are accountable to them, so they cannot get away with doing nothing in the community 5) It encourages parties to become more central (and thus representative) to win votes |
|
|
What are the disadvantages of the First Past the Post system? |
1) MPs can easily get in without a majority support - 30 MPs had a majority of less than 1000, 3 less than 100 2) It encourages tactical voting as many people feel they cannot vote for the party they want, particularly in electoral desserts 3) The Governments formed nearly all have less than 50% of the vote so their legitimacy is called in question - The current government has only 37% of the vote 4) It creates a set of safe seats they anyone living in that seat who doesn't agree with the MP has no say essentially - Anyone living in the Broadland seat who doesn't vote conservative will never have a local MP they agree with 5) It creates electoral desserts where no MPs represent a large group of people - 14.9% of people in Scotland voted Tory and got merely one MP |
|
|
How and where does the AMS System work? |
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT 1) It is a mixed election system where voters get two votes, one for a candidate in a single member constituency and another for a party in large multi-member constituencies 2) The party list representatives are allocated in order to make it more proportional, using the closed list system 3) In Scotland there are 73 MSP elected to constituencies and 56 elected by party list 4) Seats are allocated by the D'hondt formula |
|
|
What are the Pros of the AMS system? |
1) It is far more representative and those who support minor parties can hold power in co-alitions, like the greens in 2007 so is more legitimate
2) It eliminates the need for some tactical voting as they can vote for parties they want - Notably the Tories 3) Voters can 'split the ticket' and vote for more than one person/party so it is fairer instead of only having one, they can spread their vote 4) There are far fewer wasted votes as they can vote for parties in the knowledge that if there are enough of them they will get some representation so no electoral deserts |
|
|
What are the Cons of the AMS system? |
1) It can form coalitions that no-one voted for - Labour/Lib Dem coalition in 2003 - These coalitions can then not stick to manifesto promises as they aren't accountable 2) Minor parties with a small share of the vote can form minority coalitions - The greens got merely 4% of the vote in 2007 but were still in govt 3) Top-up votes on a closed list means people do not know who they are voting for and this breaks the MP/Constituency link - These MPs are decided by parties who could still put forward unpopular candidates 4) Coalitions are typically weaker than single party governments |
|
|
What & How does the party list system work? |
EUROPEAN ELECTIONS 1) The country is divided into 9 large multi member constituencies each having between 3 & 10 MPs 2) In each region the party draws up a list of candidates. 3) Voters get one vote and vote for one party, NOT the candidates, that is out of their control. 4) The D'hondt formula assigns candidates in proportion to the votes received. Candidates are chosen in order down the closed list |
|
|
What are the pros of the closed list system? |
1) It is relatively simple and is conducted the same was as FPTP for the voter 2) There are no wasted votes or tactical voting as every vote is equal - UKIP has 22 MPs unlike FPTP where they'd have none as UKIP voters can vote how they choose 3) It provides a high degree of party proportionaity so all governments are legitimate and are selected by a majority of people 4) The List system means there is a greater proportionality of women and minority candidates - There are 34% female MEPs, but only 29% in Parliament |
|
|
What are the cons of a closed list system? |
1) The lists are impersonal, there is no link between the MEPs and the regional area, so many don't know their MP so they are less accountable 2) The choice of candidates still remains up to the party who might choose to select unpopular candidates to stand, which the voter has no say over 3) 'Safer' candidates are nearer the top, which doesn't allow for minorities or new fresh MPs 4) It is impossible to stand as an independent candidate 5) Highly proportional systems can lead to fragmented governments |
|
|
What are the cornerstones of the UK election? |
1) Universal adult sufferage 2) One vote per person 3) Secret ballot 4) Competition between candidates |
|
|
What are the main elections in the UK? |
General Elections - 5 years fixed term Devolved elections - 4 years fixed term European parliament - 5 years fixed term Local elections - varies |
|
|
What are the main functions of elections? |
1) Form governments 2) Ensure representation 3) Uphold legitimacy |
|
|
How do elections form governments? |
1) Elections are the principal way elections are formed - The leading members of the party with a majority form government, with the parties leader becoming PM who appoints the rest of government 2) BUT in a hung parliament this can take weeks of negotiation |
|
|
How do elections ensure representation? |
1) First, they create a link between constituents and their MP, ensuring their concerns and grievances are addressed 2) Secondly they create a link between the government and public opinion because elections make Politicians and government accountable and removable 3) BUT the longer gap between elections weaken the link between voters and Politicians 4) BUT there are questions over how to represent constituents |
|
|
How do elections uphold legitimacy? |
1) This is the link to political stability as citizens respect they have to respect government and obey the law 2) Citizens voting is giving consent to being governed 3) BUT low turnouts bring legitimacy into question 4) BUT the falling support for the two main parties show a decreasing acceptance with them governing |
|
|
What are the main theories of representation/ |
1) Trusteeship 2) The doctrine of the mandate 3) Descriptive representation |
|
|
What is the trusteeship form of representation? |
1) This is the idea that politicians act as trustees, using superior knowledge or education 2) These people then vote with their own conscience as they think the electorate not know what's best 3) This was the major thought until the 1950s and is known as Burkean represenation 4) BUT Allowing politicians to think for themselves creates a 'gap', especially as they may promote themselves, middle class males 5) BUT this system is generally out of date after the formation of the political party so this only works in 'free' votes |
|
|
What is the doctrine of the mandate form of representation? |
1) This is the idea that after an election the winning party gains a 'popular' mandate to carry out the policies in their mandate
2) This implies it is the party not the politicians carrying out the representation, allowing for party unity and discipline - Politicians should remain true to their party 3) Most voters in elections will vote for the party not the MP 4) BUT not all voters rationally vote for a party based on their manifesto, sometimes from tradition etc 5) BUT In coalitions this may not work as post-election many parties abandon policies 6) BUT it is unlikely a person supports ALL of a manifesto so can't be represented by it |
|
|
What is the descriptive representation form of representation? |
1) This is the idea that representatives should resemble those they represent so a parliament would be representative of the whole country with members from all ethnic groups and women 2) This is based around the idea that for someone to represent they must have 'walked in their shoes' 3) BUT it would be far harder to find a common public interest they all agree on and representation would get narrower 4) BUT this could result in politicians becoming as apathetic, lazy and poorly educated as the people 5) BUT it is impossible to create representation non elctorally - Labour's all female short lists were declared illegal |
|
|
What are the two main types of election systems? |
Majoritarian - Larger parties win many seats, higher than their vote percentage, increasing the chance of single party governments Proportional systems - Parties are allocated seats in direct proportion to the vote proportion |
|
|
What are the implications of FPTP? |
1) Disproportionality 2) Systematic Bias 3) Two-party system 4) Single-party governments 5) Lanslide effect |
|
|
What is the Disproportionality in FPTP? |
1) Because the system focusses on members not parties, votes to a parties seats are not proportional so the 'wrong' party can win an election 2) In 1951 the Conservatives formed a government with less votes than Labour received |
|
|
What is the Systematic Bias in FPTP? |
1) Larger parties benefit as - The winner takes all means that 100% of representation in a constituency is taken by one person & party - Candidates from larger parties are more likely to win the plurality support whereas parties that come third/fourth will gain no represenation - People are discouraged voting for smaller parties as these are seen as 'wasted votes' 2) Distribution - parties with a concentrated support will win more as the concentration makes it more effective and parties with weaker support can be third everywhere and gain no representation 3) Labour and the conservatives are traditionally over represented as they have concentrated support and are large parties whilst Lib Dems aren't, gaining 6% less votes than Labour in 2010 but recieved under a quarter of the seats 4) This has improved though due to - Targeting specific seats - Tactical voting |
|
|
What is the two party system in FPTP? |
1) The systematic biases mean that ultimately only two parties have any chance of forming government - In 1950s 95% voted on or t'other, in 2010 it was 65% but they still got 85% of the MPs 2) This puts third party supporters off voting for them as they think their votes would be wasted, especially as there are only about 100 truly marginal seats, the rest are 'safe' |
|
|
What is the single-party government in FPTP? |
1) The majoritarian system means that the winning party wins enough support to govern alone whilst the other acts as a government in waiting 2) Not since 1935 has a single party won a majority of votes but only twice since then, 1974 and 2010 has one party not gained a majority |
|
|
What is the Lanslide effect in FPTP? |
1) It produces a winner's bonus where a small change in votes can result in landslide victories, particulaly evident as the support for Labour and Conservatives has dropped, resulting in a drop for the other party 2) In 1983 the conservatives won 44 more seats (469) than in 1979 despite their vote share dropping by 0.5% |
|
|
What are the main proportional systems? |
1) AMS - Mixed system - Used in Scotland, Wales and London 2) STV - Proportional - Used to elect to Northern Ireland assembly 3) Party list - Proportional - European parliament 4) Supplementary vote - Majoritarian - London mayor |
|
|
What are the impliactions of proportional systems? |
1) Greater Proportionality 2) Multiparty systems 3) Coalition or Minoritys govts 4) Consensus-building |
|
|
Describe greater proportionality as an implication of proportional voting systems |
1) As representatives are far closer to the vote share, the over representation of major parties is shrunken and the landslide effect removed - In 2007, although Labour won more than 50% of constituency seats in Scotland (37 of 63) the correction lead to them winning 36% of all seats, as they'd only won 32% of the popular vote |
|
|
Describe Mulitparty Systemsas an implication of proportional voting systems |
1) As Minor parties are more likely to win under proportional systems, this leads to greater party representation - The Green party (Until 2010) had no representation in Westminster despite over 250,000 votes but they are represented on the Scottish Assembely, including even getting into government - UKIP won 13.5m votes at 2015 election but one MP but won |
|
|
Describe Coalitions or minority governmentsas an implication of proportional voting systems |
1) As more parties are represented more, this leads to coalitions or minority governments as they are forced to represent a majority of the people - For example in Wales in 2007 a grand coalition was formed between Plaid Cymru and Labour after 4 years of minority Labour rule - All elections up until 2011 had resulted in a coalition or minority governments in Scotland |
|
|
Describe Consensus-buildingas an implication of proportional voting systems |
1) In single party systems a single party has majority over the legislature so they can 'force' through their legislation through whipping 2) In proportional systems, the parties in coalition serve to negotiate, compromise etc to build a post-election deal that encompasses all parties involved policies so the eventual policies are more appealing to a great er number of people. 3) This also goes for minority governments who need to attract the support of other fringe parties to help them - The Scottish Parliament when under Labour had to has split with Westminster over Higher education and elderly care as they had to accommodate other views |
|
|
What are the arguments for reforming Westminster elections? |
1) Electoral fairness 2) All votes count 3) Majority government 4) Accountable government 5) Consensus political climate |
|
|
Describe the Electoral fairness argument for reforming Westminster elections |
1) It seems onlt fair that a parties strength in Parliament represents their proportion of support in the country - It underpins the basic democaratic principle of political inequality, whereas in PR all votes are equal regardless of who they support - In the 2015 election, the conservatives won 37% of the vote and 51% of the seats |
|
|
Describe the equal votesargument for reforming Westminster elections |
1) In PR no votes are wasted, regardless of where you live, who you support, if you vote for more than it takes a candidate to win - There are no electoral deserts and this should promote turnout and engagement - In Scotland at 2015 Labour received 24.3% of the vote but merely one MP, a 2% area, as the SNP support was concentrated |
|
|
Describe the Majority Governmentargument for reforming Westminster elections |
1) Governments under PR are by definition supported by the majority of those who vote so are far more legitimate, and will create genuinely popular broad based politics - Under FPTP a mere 35% of the vote share can give a majority, as shown in 2005 |
|
|
Describe the Accountable Governmentargument for reforming Westminster elections |
1) Under a majoritarian system the Executive has a far weaker link to the legislature as they have a majority there so don't have to listen, but under a PR system, the Executive is forced to listen to the Parliament more as they need the support of several parties to pass a bill (usually) |
|
|
Describe the Consensus political climateargument for reforming Westminster elections |
1) In a PR system the political power is distributed more widely as a wider range of parties are involved in the decision making process, becoming a process of partnership, not 'yaa-boo' politics - The SNP agreed to support a climate change bill in return for going into govt with the Green Party in 2007 |
|
|
What are the arguments against reforming Westminster elctions? |
1) Clear Electoral choice 2) Constituency link 3) Mandate democracy 4) Strong governments 5) Stable governments |
|
|
Describe the Electoral choice argument against reforming Westminster Elections |
1) As the people are voting for a party that is unlikely to need to compromise they offer a clear choice between two different political and ideological agendas, making politics more meaningful for the people - At the 2005 election, people were given a clear choice between the Labour and Conservative parties whereas at 2010 the people ended up with a government that no-one voted for |
|
|
Describe the Constituency representationargument against reforming Westminster Elections |
1) As there is a clear link between the constituents and the MP the people know who represents them and therefore who to take their grievances to - In the Scottish system there are both local and large constituency MPs which could create a system of more accountable and less accountable MPs - Only 5% of people know any MEP representing them due to the larger consituencies |
|
|
Describe the mandate democracyargument against reforming Westminster Elections |
1) In FPTP the voters get a government who can carry out what they were voted in to do - pass their manifesto, whilst in PR the post-election deals can allow parties to drop policies that many voted them in for - The Liberal Democrats dropped their popular scarp tuition fees pledge when entering government |
|
|
Describe the Strong government argument against reforming Westminster Elections |
1) In FPTP governmetns are allowed to govern because they enjoy a majority in the legislature whereas in coalition they are forced to listen to small parties that hold the balance of power, far more power than they deserve 2) In the 2007 Scottish elections the Greens were in government despite only gaining two MPs |
|
|
Describe the Strong governmentargument against reforming Westminster Elections |
1) Single party governmets are stronger as they hold a majority so can last a whole term in office because the ruling party is united on ideological and political levels whereas divided coalitions can prove to be weak and unstable |
