Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
29 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
First Past The Post - Summary
|
FPTP is a single, plurality system and is used for Westminster general elections. The UK is divided into 650 constituencies, and each elects an MP. The candidate who receives the most votes wins.
|
|
|
FPTP - Problem of Winning by Most Votes
|
In 2010 General Election in the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency, Labour's Glenda Jackson received 17,332 votes, while the 2nd place candidate got 17,290 votes - just 0.1% difference. This meant that a considerable amount of people were underrepresented.
|
|
|
FPTP - Votes Against vs. For
|
In the same Hampstead and Kilburn election, 17,332 people voted for the winning candidate, However, 35,490 people voted for other candidates, meaning than more people voted against the winning candidate than for.
|
|
|
FPTP - Minority Governments
|
With FPTP, minority governments can be formed. This means that the controlling party has to garner support from the opposition in order to pass legislation. Due to this, minority governments tend to be less stable as the opposition can always bring the government down.
|
|
|
FPTP - Summary of Advantages
|
Strong Governments, Simplicity, Representative
|
|
|
FPTP - Strong Governments
|
Usually, one party gets a clear majority in the House of Commons. This is good because a government is formed that can usually carry out its manifesto policies without depending on other parties.
|
|
|
FPTP - Simplicity
|
FPTP is easy for members of the public to understand. The voter simply puts a cross next to a candidate's name and the one with the most votes wins. Its simplicity means more people will decide to vote, better for democracy. Also, the votes are usually counted quickly.
|
|
|
FPTP - Representative
|
Under FPTP, voters have a single MP representing them. This creates a strong constituent-representative link and is better for representing the needs of the constituency.
|
|
|
FPTP - Weaknesses
|
'Winner Takes All', Wasted Votes, Unproportionality, Minority Governments and Less Effective Decision Making.
|
|
|
FPTP - Winner Takes All
|
There are no prizes for 2nd, 3rd or 4th place, even if only a few votes separates them. Only 42 votes between winner and 2nd in Hampstead and Kilburn in 2010 General Election.
|
|
|
FPTP - Wasted Votes
|
A party may not get enough votes in one constituency to win, but it may get more across a wider region, yet still have no representation at governmental level. This means many feel their votes are wasted - in 2005, 70% of votes were wasted.
|
|
|
FPTP - Unproportionality
|
General elections have shown that the number of votes a party gets does not always reflect the number of seats they receive. For example, in 2010, Labour received 29% votes and 39.7% seats, but the Lib Dems got 23% of the votes and just 8.8% of the seats.
|
|
|
FPTP - Less than 50%
|
In 2005, Labour won the General Election with only 35% of the vote, and had the power to control the country. This is unproportional.
|
|
|
FPTP - Less Effective Decision Making
|
FPTP doesn't always result in a majority winner. Sometimes, coalitions or minority governments can be created, meaning it is harder to push legislation through and less decision making is made.
|
|
|
Additional Member System - Summary
|
AMS is used to elect the 129 MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. It is made up of two ballots - one FPTP constituent MSP ballot for 73 constituencies, and one PR 'Regional List' ballot for 56 MSPs for 8 regions.
|
|
|
AMS - Formula used to calculate additional MSPs
|
D'Hondt Formula: Number of regional votes for party is added up, and divided by number of MSPs +1. If a party gains an MSP, their denominator increases. This ensures that a party with a good lead in the constituency ballot does less well in the regional ballot.
|
|
|
AMS - Better Representation
|
By combining FPTP and PR, AMS tries to fix the faults of FPTP. In 2007, the SNP gained 37% votes and 32% seats, so the variation is less than FPTP and it is fairer.
|
|
|
AMS - Smaller Parties
|
AMS has a 2nd PR ballot across a wider region. This means that smaller parties who couldn't win a constituency will be more likely to win with a region, and the electorate will be better represented.
|
|
|
AMS - Voter Choice
|
A constituent may appreciate a candidate, but not agree with their party's mandate/manifesto policies. By including two ballots, a voter is able to represent this in their vote and their opinion is better conveyed in comparison to other systems.
|
|
|
AMS - Weak Link
|
With AMS, constituents are represented by a constituency MSP and 7 regional MSPs. This means that the strong connection between representative and constituent is lost.
|
|
|
AMS - Lack of Simplicity
|
Because AMS is comprised of two ballots, each employing a different system, voters can get confused and as a result, more papers are spoiled. In 2007, over 150,000 papers were spoiled as a result of misunderstanding the process.
|
|
|
Single Transferable Vote - Summary
|
STV is a PR-based system used to elect councillors. It requires voters to rank the candidates in order of preference.
|
|
|
STV - Reasons for Usage
|
There was disagreement over the fairness of FPTP in council elections. In Midlothian in 1999, Labour received 46% of the votes, yet 94% of the seats. In addition, 12 of Scotland's 32 LAs were dominated by parties with less than 50% of the votes.
|
|
|
STV - How it is Calculated
|
Ordered into piles according to 1st ranked. Quote (threshold) is created by dividing the no. of candidates by seats+1, then +1; e.g. If there were 20,000 votes and 3 seats, the quota would be 5001. If no candidate meets the threshold, then the lowest one's votes are redistributed to 2nd preference. If one does reach the quota, they get a seat and their excess votes are redistributed too.
|
|
|
STV - Representation
|
STV is a PR-based system, so smaller parties are treated fairer and more voters are justly represented. Some would argue that it does not entirely solve the problem, as a quota is needed for a winning candidate. However, there is a clear improvement - in 2007, Labour received 30.8% of votes and 28.7% of seats.
|
|
|
STV - Wasted Votes
|
With FPTP, the 'winner takes all' approach means that some parties dominate in a constituency, dubbed a 'safe seat'. This means that many opinions are not fairly conveyed and votes are wasted - in 2005, 70% of the general election votes were wasted. STV allows ranking of candidates, and 'safe seats' are eliminated. However, the confusing system behind STV means that there are more spoiled papers. All in all, wasted votes are reduced.
|
|
|
STV - Tactical Voting
|
In marginal seats, members of the electorate who support smaller parties feel they will be dwarfed and decide to vote for one of the bigger parties to stop the other winning. This undermines the democratic base of the election and is bad. STV's ranking system removes these seats due to PR and thus is better for democracy.
|
|
|
STV - Weakness of Voter Choice
|
With AMS, voters pick a candidate and a party, improving upon FPTP as it conveys the opinions of people who agree with a candidate but not their party. However, STV offers up no such alternative, and voter choice is still limited to a candidate.
|
|
|
STV - Coalitions
|
Coalitions are formed when parties with minorities are created in the election. These are often considered ineffective forms of decision making as there is struggle to push through legislation. STV actually makes coalitions more likely due to being PR-based, but this can be seen as a positive form of 'compromise politics'.
|
