Читайте также:
|
ADVANTAGES OF THE FPTP
The merits of this system (really designed in 1885 by the Conservatives and Liberals to ensure that radical parties would not win any seats) are as follows;
DISADVANTAGES OF THE FPTP
| Party | No. of votes | % of votes cast | Seats won |
| Labour | 10.7 million | ||
| Conservative | 8.4 million ' | ||
| Liberal Democrat | 4.8 million |
Table 2.2 First past the post in practice: general election, 2001
In the 2001 general election, Labour had a majority of 167 seats.
In Tables 2.2 and 2.3, look at the relationship between votes cast and seats won particularly for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Note also that the majority of those who voted (13.2 million) did not vote for the winners.
| Party | % of vote | % of seats in Parliament |
| Labour | ||
| Conservative | 33 ' | |
| Liberal Democrat |
Table 2.3 Votes and seats in Great Britain: general election, 2001
The Liberal Democrats lost votes in the 2001 election, their vote falling from 5.2 million in 1997 to 4.8 million in 2001 — but their number of seats went up from 44 to 52.
| Party | Share of the vote | Seats won at Westminster |
| Labour | 44% | |
| Conservative | 16% | |
| Liberal Democrat | 16% | |
| SNP | 20% |
Table 2.4 Votes and seats in Scotland: general election, 2001
TACTICAL VOTING
Another perceived failing of the first-past-the-post system is that it can lead to tactical voting. This occurs when voters in a constituency who happen to support party A realise that there is no chance of their favoured party winning, so they vote for party B in order to try and stop the candidate for party C winning. They dislike party C most, so they vote for a party they don't dislike as much, but don’t really prefer, as the smaller of two evils. One of the reasons why both Labour and the Liberal Democrats did so well in 1997 and 2001 was because of tactical voting: many Liberals voted Labour in some seats to keep out the Conservatives, while in other constituencies, Labour voters backed Liberals also to keep out the Conservatives.
The two ballot or second ballot systems
This is mainly used in France. If a candidate wins more than 50 % of the vote, he or she is elected. If no candidate gets more than half of the votes, the weaker candidates withdraw and there is a second election in which voters can reconsider their vote. The process continues until one candidate has over 50 % of the vote.
The alternative vote (AV) system
This happens in single-member constituencies with voters listing candidates in order of preference. The candidate with the fewest first preferences is eliminated and this continues until one candidate has a majority.
The supplementary vote (once supported by the Labour Party)
Here a voter has just two preferences. If no candidate gets 50 % of the vote, all but the top two candidates are withdrawn and their second choices are distributed.
ADVANTAGES OF MAJORITARIAN SYSTEMS
DISADVANTAGES OF MAJORITARIAN SYSTEMS
ELECTION STATISTICS
It has been argued, based on extensive polling, that if the British general election of 1997 had been conducted under a different electoral system, the results would have been as shown in Table 2.5.
| FPTP | List | AV | STV | AMS | Supp. vote | |
| Conservative | 203. | |||||
| Labour | ||||||
| Liberal Democrat |
Table 2.5 Number of seats which might have been won in 1997 under different electoral systems
The Liberal Democrats have naturally always been keen on electoral reform, while Labour has become much less enthusiastic. It is becoming clear now that the Conservative Party, always very strong opponents of electoral reform, might have most to gain after the 2001 election from moving to a reformed electoral system.
Proportional systems
The list system
This is used in EU countries like Belgium and Spain. Quite simply it means that if a party gets 45 % of the votes cast, it gets 45 % of the seats in parliament. The constituencies tend to be very large, with as many as 20 MPs being elected for each. It is mathematically very correct, but it is criticised for giving a lot of power to the parties themselves, which decide the candidates on their lists. Also it does not produce MPs with a strong constituency link.
European elections
The UK is entitled to send 87 MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) the European Parliament. This number may change if the EU is enlarged. There are considerable differences between the way in which MEPs and MPs are elected. The system used for European elections is a type of proportional representation called the closed-list system.
The main features of the system are as follows:
The single transferable vote (STV) system
Under this system a country is divided into multi-member constituencies: in Ireland, for example, they are county-sized, each returning several MPs to parliament. Five is a common number. The voter has five votes in a five-member constituency, and lists his or her votes in order of preference. If a candidate gets more than 20 % of first preference votes, he or she is elected. Once a candidate gets more than 20% of the votes cast, the remainder of his or her votes are transferred to the voters' second choices. To be elected, a candidate has to get a quota and quota is worked out by using the Droop formula:
total number of votes cast + 1
quota = number of seats in the constituency +1
Parties tend to take a lot of care in selecting candidates under this system in order to give the electorate plenty of choice: for example, there are more women candidates. The constituency link is retained, the voter gets more choice and the number of seats won by parties tends to reflect the proportions of the vote they received nationally. Voters tend to vote for candidates and not parties, and it is in the interest of all parties to work hard at election time to educate the voters about the merits of their candidates. In some countries it produces a majority government; in others it does not. It is worth noting that there is no evidence that it produces political instability.
The additional member system (AMS)
This is the system adopted for elections to the Scottish Parliament, where voters have two votes, one for a constituency MP and one for a party.
Elections for the Scottish Parliament
This is very different from the system used for British general elections.
The Conservatives gained no seats in the constituencies, even though they had more than 20% of the vote, but they gained seats in the Scottish Parliament through the closed-list system in the regions (see Table 2.1)
Table 2.1 The results of the elections to the Scottish Parliament, 1999
Constituency contests Regional lists
| Share of vote | Seats won | Share of vote | Seats won | Total no. of seats won | |
| Conservative | 16% | 15% | |||
| Labour | 39% | 34% | |||
| Liberal Democrat | 14% | 12% | |||
| SNP | 29% | 27% |
Note the very considerable variations between the share of the vote and the seats won under the two different systems. Note also that it has produced a coalition government in Scotland
The Welsh Assembly Elections
The Welsh system is virtually identical to the Scottish system.
The electoral system in Northern Ireland
The electoral history of Northern Ireland is very different from the rest of the UK. There had been many concerns about the extent to which constituency boundaries had been gerrymandered (drawn in such a way as to ensure that one type of candidate was elected) and about the accuracy of the voter lists. (The old saying 'vote early and vote often' comes from Northern Ireland and investigations in the 1970s revealed that a very large number of dead people had managed to vote as well.) The system used is a proportional representation system.
ADVANTAGES OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
DISADVANTAGES OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
Outline two functions of general elections
Choose from these:
Elections are at the heart of the democratic process. For many citizens, voting in an election is their main form of political activity.
For most citizens, voting in a general election is their key act of political participation. At the ballot box, the voter expresses a political preference by voting for the candidate of a particular political party.
Facing the electorate every 5 years is one of the ways in which the government is held accountable for its performance in office. Voters can remove unpopular governments.
In a representative democracy, elections are a means by which the electorate selects representatives to act on its behalf.
In the UK parliamentary system, general elections determine the composition of the legislature (albeit one chamber of it) rather than the executive. However, as the majority party in the House of Commons forms the government, most general elections effectively decide which party will take power. Exceptions occur in the case of a hung parliament, where no single party has an overall majority (1974 minority Labour government). Then, as in proportional representation systems where elections rarely produce a decisive majority, deals between political parties determine the composition of the government.
Elections allow ordinary citizens to have their policy preferences heard and to influence the political agenda. Voters can choose the party offering a package of policies that best meet their interests or values, but have only limited scope to influence individual decisions. Election defeat can, however, force a party to rethink policies that proved unpopular at the polls (e.g. Labour's 1983 policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament – “the longest suicide note in history”). The doctrine of the mandate gives the winning party authority to press ahead with the programme that it presented successfully to the electorate, but it also suggests that radical initiatives should not be introduced without prior approval from voters.
Election campaigns provide citizens with information on major political issues, the policies of the main political parties, the government's record, etc. The more informed and better educated the electorate, the healthier the democracy is.
Free and fair elections provide legitimacy for the political system as a whole. By the act of voting, even for a losing party, citizens give their consent to the workings of the system. Voters accept completely that elections are free and. fair. The government also gains legitimacy, as by winning an election it can claim to be both representative of, and responsible to, the people.
Finally, elections are a means of recruitment to the governing elite. Political parties are the key agents of recruitment, as they nominate candidates for election, provide them with the resources to conduct a successful campaign and then expect loyalty to the party line once those candidates become MPs.
(5) Define proportional representation
o Proportional representation (PR) is a principle not a specific electoral system. The objective of a PR system is to try to ensure that the seats a political party gains in an elected assembly are proportional to the popular votes it gained. So a party gaining 40% of the votes in an assembly consisting of 500 members should have 200 members.
o A number of specific PR systems have been invented and even if the general arguments in favour of PR are accepted, it still remains to decide which system would be best for Britain.
o The three main PR systems are the Single Transferable Vote (STV) used in Northern Ireland for all but the UK general election, the List System widely used throughout Europe and used for elections for the European Parliament in the UK and the Additional Member System (AMS) used in Germany and for the Scottish parliament, the Welsh and London Assemblies. The AMS system is a combination of FPTP and a List System.
(5) Define first-past-the-post
(10) Describe the FPTP electoral system
However it is not without its criticism.
For example,
In 1983 national elections
ü Labour got 27.6% of he votes and received 209 seats
ü Alliance got 25.4%of the votes but gained only 23 seats
In 1997 national elections
ü The Lib Dem gained 16.8% of the votes but only got 46 seats
ü The Conservatives gained 30.7%of the votes but gained 165 seats.
ü Labour won 43.2% of the votes and gained 419 seats.
ü At a proportionate level, the Lib Dem should have got around 106 seats in Westminster.
In 2001 national elections
ü Labour got 40.7% of he votes and received 412 seats
ü The Conservatives gained 31.7%of the votes but gained 166 seats
How far does the FPTP electoral system differ from PR?
How does the Westminster electoral system differ from the other electoral systems used in the UK?
First past the post (FPTP) is the electoral system used in the UK general elections. Electors vote for one individual (usually representing a political party) in single-member constituencies. The candidate with the most votes wins a seat in the House of Commons.
Whereas the objective of a PR system is to try to ensure that the seats a political party gains in an elected assembly are proportional to the popular votes it gained. So a party gaining 40% of the votes in an assembly consisting of 500 members should have 200 members.
The three main PR systems are the Single Transferable Vote (STV) used in Northern Ireland for all but the UK general election, the List System used for the European Parliament elections in the UK and the Additional Member System (AMS) used for the Scottish parliament, the Welsh and London Assemblies. The AMS system is a combination of FPTP and a List System.
The main strength of the FPTP electoral system are as follows:
On the other hand the advantages of the PR systems are:
The weaknesses of the FPTP system:
The criticism pf PR systems:
In conclusion it is worth considering the fact that although these electoral systems differ in the way they work and the result they obtain differs greatly as well it is clear that each of them has its own strength and weaknesses.
Outline the workings of three electoral systems in the UK.
Outline the workings of two electoral systems in the UK.
Describe the other electoral systems used in the UK.
Plan:
1) FPTP
How it works
Strengths
Weaknesses
2) PR
Describe
Types of PR: List system,
STV,
AMS,
Strengths & Weaknesses
All the information above.
What implications does the FPTP system have for representation?
Although this system usually produces a government with working majorities, which avoids the need for coalition governments, it is not without its criticism.
Firstly, it is unfair in the way it distributes the seats. The distribution is disproportionate.
For example: In 1983 national elections
ü Labour got 27.6% of he votes and received 209 seats
ü Alliance got 25.4%of the votes but gained only 23 seats
In 1997, Labour won 44.33% of the vote, which FPTP translated into 419 Commons seats - 63.58% of the total.
Moreover, FPTP gives an unfair advantage to two main parties, and additional bonus to the election “winner”
For instance: In 2001 national elections
ü Labour got 40.7% of he votes and received 412 seats
ü The Conservatives gained 31.7%of the votes but gained 166 seats
ü
Too often a majority of the voters in a constituency vote against the winner. This could be seen as undemocratic. Any government can represent only a minority of the voters.
Additionally, small parties are usually disadvantaged.
For example, In 1997 national elections
ü The Lib Dem gained 16.8% of the votes but only got 46 seats
ü The Conservatives gained 30.7%of the votes but gained 165 seats.
ü Labour won 43.2% of the votes and gained 419 seats.
ü At a proportionate level, the Lib Dem should have got around 106 seats in Westminster.
It can lead to 'safe' seats, where one party always wins a seat in a particular constituency. This is not good for democracy.
It can lead to a situation such as in Scotland in 1997, when nearly 20 % of the electorate voted for one party (the Conservatives) and yet they did not win single seat in parliament for that country.
Britain is supposed to be a representative democracy! The function of the elections is to produce a representative government, but in reality it is another way round! So maybe the possible solution to this could be the introduction of one of the Proportional Representation systems, such for instance as those used in the devolved institutions. For example ……(depending on how much time I will have in the exam continue writing as much as possible.)
How have different electoral systems affected the representation of parties in the UK?
Whatever Party is in power almost always the electoral system FPTP gives them a lot of advantages.
FPTP tends to exaggerate the performance of the most popular party. It produces a 'winner's bonus' or 'landslide effect'. This means that a small increase in the share of the vote is translated into a substantial net gain in seats and a working majority in parliament. This was most apparent in the 'landslide' election victories won by Labour in 1945, 1966, 1997 and 2001 and by the Conservatives in 1983 and 1987. In 1983 and 1987, the Conservatives won majorities of over a hundred seats on just over 4296 of the popular vote. Labour's 43.4% of the vote in 1997 and 40.7% in 2001 produced parliamentary majorities of 179 and 167 respectively. At the 1992 general election, the Conservatives' 41.8% of the popular vote translated into a 51.6% share of
Rather than simply favouring the winning party, the electoral system has become biased in favour of Labour. The main reason for this 'bias' is that Labour's vote is distributed more efficiently than that of the Conservatives. Labour benefits from differences in constituency size, particularly the over-representation of Scotland and Wales at Westminster. In 1997 and 2001, Labour also won extra votes in seats where it made most difference to the outcome. Labour scored its biggest swings in seats that the Conservatives were defending in 1997, winning a series of marginal and relatively safe Tory seats. Four years later, the swing to the Conservatives in these seats was less than the national average, frustrating Tory efforts to regain them.
Looking ahead, the bias in the electoral system seems set to provide further darkness for the Conservatives. If they were able to secure a uniform swing of 4.7% from Labour at the next election, the Conservatives would draw level with Labour in terms of share of the popular vote. However, Labour would still win 140 more seats than the Conservatives. The Tories could enjoy a 9-point lead over Labour and still not win a majority of seats. To win a parliamentary majority, the Conservatives will need to achieve a mammoth swing of 11.5% from Labour.
The FPTP electoral system discriminates against minority parties whose support is not concentrated in particular regions. A third party whose support is spread thinly across the country will fare especially badly. There are no rewards for coming second or third — gaining a plurality of votes in single-member constituencies is what counts.
In the period of two-party dominance between 1945 and 1970, on average only ten MPs per parliament represented third or minor parties. That figure has since risen: The average between 1974 and 2001 was 49 MPs. The 80 MPs from third and minor parties elected in 2001 made up one-fifth of the total membership of the House of Commons. This suggests that the electoral system has become less effective in keeping minor parties out of the Commons and/or that smaller parties are addressing some of the obstacles the FPTP system puts in their way rather better than they did in the past.
The Liberal Democrats (and their predecessors) have been consistent and heavy losers under the FPTP system. In 1983 the SDP/Liberal Alliance scooped 25.4% of the vote but won only 23 seats (3.5%). The Alliance trailed Labour by just 2.2% of the vote, but by a massive 186 seats. The Liberal Democrats won fewer seats than their election performance merited in both 1997 and 2001. Nonetheless, they produced their best performances in terms of seats for over 60 years. In 1997 support for the Liberal Democrats fell by a percentage point (to 16.8%) but they won 46 seats (a gain of 26). Tactical voting and effective campaigning in their target seats, particularly in southwest England where they are the second party, accounted for this increase.
Minor parties whose support is concentrated in particular regions fare better. The Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymru have consistently won seats at Westminster since 1970. They do not contest seats across the UK, but focus their resources in their own nations. Plaid Cymru gained a greater voice at Westminster than its share of the UK (and Welsh) vote merited, as its support was, for much of this period, concentrated in a small number of Welsh-speaking constituencies.
Discuss the impact of PR systems currently used in the UK.
Дата добавления: 2015-10-26; просмотров: 133 | Нарушение авторских прав
| <== предыдущая страница | | | следующая страница ==> |
| Тема 15. Структура судебного разбирательства. | | | Complete the passage below using the appropriate words or phrases from the box. |