Transcript AS Elections

Elections
Purposes of Elections
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
To elect a member of Parliament to represent the constituency as a whole or as individual to
express grievance against the state.
A verdict on the performance of the government- e.g. 1997 verdict on Conservative Government
or 2010 against Labour.
To decide between alterative political programmes (manifestos).
Choosing between different teams of political leaders.
To grant a mandate to the new government- granting authority to whichever party wins. This
electoral mandate does two things- the winning party has the authority to put into effect its
manifesto commitments (doctrine of the mandate and manifesto) and it grants to the new
government authority to do whatever necessary to promote the security and welfare of the
country. And to respond to an emergency (doctor’s mandate) Here, however Parliament still acts
a s a check.
An election allows for major political issues and philosophies of the day to be put to public
scrutiny.
Elections to regional assemblies and Parliaments similar functions as to Westminster although
issues are on a regional basis. Northern Ireland assembly elections overwhelming issue is
question of status of Province in relation to the UK. If Sinn Fein does well it indicates growing
support for independence if radical loyalists do well it demonstrates resistance to demands of the
Nationalist community.
Local elections- functions are different as a government is not being elected but a number of
councillors to represent the local community but also as an opinion poll on the performance of the
government.
Key features of the FPTP
• Simple majority or plurality systemwhoever wins the largest number of votes
is elected, no need for a set % of the vote.
• Each constituency 1MP
• Each party nominate only one candidate
per constituency
• Voters have one vote each.
Effects of FPTP
• It discriminates in favour of some parties and against others.
• 1979-2010 the winning party always a considerably higher
proportion of the seats than votes.
• It has produced anomalies- 1951 Labour gained more votes than
Conservatives but latter won 26 more seats.
• February 1974 Conservatives 200 000 more votes than Labour but
4 fewer seats.
• Labour won 35.2% share of vote 2005 and a majority 65
Conservatives 36.1% vote 2010 but in a minority.
• 1992-7 LibDem vote fell from 6m-5.2M but number of seats from 2046- tarfgeting of effort and resources.
• 2010 a vote for labour or Conservatives 2010 over 3X vote for
LibDems.
Main effects of FPTP
• Strong, unique relationship between a single MP and every
constituency.
• Majority MPs elected without an overall majority of votes.
• System tends to favour leading party in the polls.
• Favours those parties able to concentrate votes in specific
constituencies.
• Hard for smaller parties to break dominance of two main parties.
• Votes not equal- more valuable in marginal, votes for second and
third parties are less value than for winning party.
• Votes for small parties no hope of winning are wasted.
• House of Commons does not reflect political balance of the
electorate.
Key features 2010
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No party overall majority for first time since February 1974.
A close result Conservatives winning 36.1% vote, Labour 29% and LibDems 23%.
All parties disappointed. Lib Dem poll ratings c30% early in campaign but support
slipped in last week and fewer seats than 2015. Labour lost its majority and share of
poll lowest since 1987. Despite ahead in opinion polls since 2007 no Conservative
majority.
3 lived leader debates transformed the campaign but little impact on changing
support.
Smaller parties no breakthrough- a Green MP but perform badly elsewhere and BNP
and UKIP polling 1000-2000 often fewer. No significant progress for nationalist
parties.
Conservatives on e seat in Scotland but 56% of English constituencies and 40%
votes there.
2009 expenses scandal little impact- Hazel Blears retain her seat easily.
Wide swing variations- electorates volatile in different parts of the country.
Overall turnout up on 2005 at 65%.
As polling day approached, opinion polls increasingly pointed to a hung Parliament so
parties began open talks on possibility of a coalition
The results
•
•
•
•
•
FPTP favoured the two largest parties.
Conservative share of vote risen by only 4% on 2005 party share of seats
up by nearly 17%. Lib Dems on a slightly higher share of votes on 2005
with 5 fewer seats.
Far higher Conservative gains in England compared with elsewhere where
gained over 50% seats. With only 1 seat in Scotland Conservatives a
legitimate claim to govern in England but not there. Case is there for
greater autonomy in Scotland where Labour won 41/59seats.
Even in England- Conservatives regionally split- dominant in southeast but
eclipsed in poorer northeast LibDems well in South-West but hardly feature
in regions outside London. One of most compelling arguments in defence of
FPTP was strong single party government overturned by result which
produced first hung Parliament 36 years and first coalition 65 years.
British Elections study survey suggests that there is a growing number of
floater voters at each election. 1992 Lab+Con 76% vote in 2010 65%.
Support for small parties increased from 6% 1992 to 12% 2010.
Electoral systems- majority
systems
• An electoral system designed to ensure the person or party elected
a broad majority of support from electorate.
• Majority systems therefore aim to reduce the contest to two
candidates and the second part includes a run off election between
the two survivors.
• London Mayor elections- Each voter two preference votes. If no
candidate 50% on first round then below top two candidates the 2nd
preference votes filed candidates are redistributed.
• French presidential elections- voters show second preference on
separate date here only top two on first ballot contest.
• Most common type of majority system is AV. Her if no one gets 50%
on first ballot the top two keep first preference and the 2nd votes of
other candidates are allocated. A more complex system operates in
Australian House of Representatives.
Plurality systems
• Plurality refers to when a candidate wins
more votes than opponent but not
necessarily an overall majority- UK
Parliament and the USA. In the latter
where there are only two serious parties
then the winner nearly always an absolute
majority in a more fractured political
system like the UK this is generally not the
case.
Proportional Representation
• PR is a description of any electoral system
that tends to produce institutions that are
representative of the people who have
elected them. If a system is exactly
proportional parties will be represented in
accordance with the proportion of total
votes they win- such a system operates
only in Israel.
STV
• Multimember constituencies (NI=6)
• Candidates must reach a quota- total of number of votes divide by
number of seats =1.
• Voters rank candidates in order of preference and can select from
different parties.
• Candidates who achieve quota on first preference are elected and
when that happens subsequent preferences are redistributed.
• As more candidates now achieve quota spare votes redistributed.
This continues until required number candidates.
• Why NI? To reflect the divisions of a divided society, prevent
unionist parties win overall majority- a history of abuse of power by
protestant parties, strong civil rights movement NI which insist on
system which maximise voter choice.
List system
• No individual candidates and each party produces a list
and number of seats equates with votes.
• A national list (Israel) or a regional list.
• Closed list- the voter only votes for a party who then
decide on elected candidate- party decides on rank
order. (UK EU parliament) or in open list- voter ranks
candidates in order.
• List system normally operates on a threshold to remove
extremist parties- 5% in post war Germany.
Additional member system
• A hybrid system.
• Mix of FPTP and the list system.
• A compromise aim at balance between element of
proportionality and idea of parliamentary constituencies.
• Purpose of the list is to make the system more
proportional by giving top up seats.
• In Scotland- 2/3 are directly elected and the list is a
closed list. Based on regions.
• System is used for GLA, welsh assembly and a 50/50
split for Germany.
AV+
• Recommended by the Royal Commission
on electoral reform (Jenkins Commission
1998)
• A variant on AMS in that the constituency
MP is elected by AV. Originally shelved,
the Jenkins proposals became labour
preferred system for Westminster 2010.
Impact of different electoral
systems in the UK.
• STV in NI- large number and variety of candidates. A very
representative system. Voters have a wide choice and 2nd and 3rd
preferences are taken into consideration. STV if used throughout UK
would see the three main parties dominate but smaller parties would
pick up seats but unlikely to produce strong party government. A
slow system to count and result not as quick as FPTP.
• AMS Scotland and Wales- labour did well in 2007 under FPTP but
effect of list system is to remove a labour majority.. In Scotland
2007 the list system secured a total of 18 seats whereas they would
have had only 4. Green get none under FPTP but 2 under list. A
more proportional vote- Labour 29% votes but 35=% seats and SNP
31% votes and 36% seats. Con and Lib dem vote proportional. In
Wales no party a majority overall and result was fairly proportional.
• List system- EU elections- 2009 a more proportional result- UKIP
with 16% vote got seats as did greens and BNP.
Party systems
• A two or more system dependent on the
number of parties which compete- 2 party
in USA a multiparty system in Italy.
• Many systems are typically one party
governments- UK pre 2010, others are
coalitions, sometimes a minority
government…
Electoral systems
• A method by which votes converted into
seats.
• UK and USA electoral systems normally
reinforce two party system whereas in
Germany a three or four party system
UK party system
• Pre 1980s Two party
• General elections tended
to reinforce the two party
dominance.
• 2 party dominance e
subsided since 1997
• Labour and
Conservatives dominated
the voting but LibDems
have gained ground.
• Popular support rather
than in Parliament (3
party system)
• Impact of the formation of
coalition 2010.
Criticisms of FPTP
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Governments based on minority- 2005 labour had only 35.2% popular vote.
Single party governments may lack therefore democratic legitimacy. And
this can lead to dissent.
House of Commons does not represent range of political opinion in UKunder representation LibDems.
Too many wasted votes- those who support minority parties or those where
the party bound to lose.
A narrow choice- voters just one vote and no say in which candidates shall
be put forward
Voters feel forced into tactical voting or don't bother- 2001 lowest turnout
since 1918.
Discrimination against LibDems means votes unequal value- 2010 average
33-34000 votes for labour or conservative but 120 000 for LibDem
Impossible to establish a new party fro modest roots leading to stagnation
or atrophy.
Likely Impact of electoral reform
•
•
•
•
AMS- in 2005 Germany the two main parties a dead heat- labour with
similar result to Christian Democrats same year on 35.2% a 66 seat majority
so similar problem could emerge in UK. Scotland 2007 the SNP a minority
and so must rely on temporary alliance on each issue. The UK likely to
develop a genuinely three party system with LibDems holding BOP. In
Scotland a four party system. in Wales a four party system- whereas under
FPTP for Wales for Westminster- one party as Labour dominates.
Easier to predict impact of the list system. Just translate vote into seats2010 a three party system for Westminster.
Difficult to assess impact STV- likelihood is that LibDems would gain seats.
And smaller parties like Greens and UKIP would pick up seats. And
nationalist parties gain considerable ground and a return to independents
and those represent very small parties. Coalitions inevitable.
AV As voters have a second choice could work in favour LibDems. It would
probably disadvantage Conservatives as not often the second choice of
either labour or LibDems.
Assessing reform
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For
Increase voter choice
Value of votes would be largely equalised
Under STV and open list voters can choose
between candidates same party.
Any alternative list would produce a result
which more represents views electorate.
Present system paces too much power in a
party which does not have majority support.
It would encourage greater engagement and
respect for the political system and may
increase participation.
Greater dynamism by encouraging new
parties to form.
UK alone in the EU by using FPTP.
Experience of Wales, NI and Scotland in
producing more representative forms of
political systems.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Against
Parties are divided- Conservatives oppose
and Labour divided.
Resounding defeat in 2010 referendum.
Success of FPTP at producing single party
governments.
Current system has delivered governments
with a clear mandate to govern coalitions
are formed on deals made post elections.
Coalition or minority governments are
unstable.
The two party system created by FPTP is
part of UK political culture- England Does
Not like coalitions.