Higher Modern Studies Revision Voting Systems

Strengths of the First Past the Post electoral system 1. FPTP is familiar and gives a speedy result. 2. There is a clear voter-representative link. The one person elected becomes the spokesperson for that constituency. That person is readily identified with their area and if they do a poor job they will be removed by their constituents. 3. There is usually a decisive result*. After a General Elections one party gets more MPs than all the others put together. For example, in the 2005 election Labour won 35% of the vote but had 55% of the MPs. Majority governments can usually have five years to implement the policies in their manifesto. Some people see majority (or strong) government as a strength of FPTP. *Note: The 2010 & 2017 General Elections were unusual in that they did not produce majority governments.

Weaknesses of the First Past the Post electoral system No individual mandate. After the election most voters are left unhappy as usually, the MP/winning party are elected with less than half the votes e.g. Jim McGovern got 48.5% of the vote so most people in Dundee West wanted other candidates and in 2005, the Labour Government got only 35% of the vote but secured 55% of the MPs. 2. Smaller parties do not gain fair representation. Slide four shows than in 2010 the Liberal Democrats got 25% of the vote but secured on 9% of the MPs. 3. Many votes are ‘wasted’. Many voters do not see the point in voting in a constituency where a candidate from the Conservative or Labour Party is almost certainly going to win. 4. It is argued that the FPTP electoral system encourages negative tactical voting where constituents vote against candidates they dislike, rather than for those they support.

The Additional Member System (AMS) is used to elect Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs). The system is a mixture of FPTP and the Party List system where voters have two votes – one for a constituency MSP and a second vote for a party on a regional list. In the constituency vote the person with the most votes wins. For the Scottish Parliament elections the country is divided into 73 constituencies. In 2016, the person with most votes in the Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley constituency was Willie Coffey.

1 Region = 7 MSPs 8 Regions overall = 56 Regional MSPs As AMS uses FPTP for the constituency vote, the second vote uses the proportional PARTY LIST system. On this ballot, voters select a political party. For this vote, Scotland is divided into eight regions each returning a further seven regional MSPs. The Party List votes are counted in each region and the 7 seats available are allocated to parties based on the proportion of votes they have received. This then makes the overall result more proportional. 1 Region = 7 MSPs 8 Regions overall = 56 Regional MSPs

TO SUMMARISE: THERE ARE 129 MSPs ALTOGETHER 73 MSPs represent CONSTITUENCIES The other 56 MSPs represent REGIONS. EACH VOTER receives TWO BALLOT PAPERS (TWO VOTES). The Constituency vote is for an individual person, who will usually belong to a political party. (This is FPTP style ballot) The second Regional Vote is for a POLITICAL PARTY (literally it is a Party List). The votes on the second ballot are counted and then seats are allocated to parties based on the proportion of votes received. Overall, this two vote system makes AMS a proportional representation electoral system.

Further example: 2011 SP election - Strengths of AMS: AMS produces a (roughly) proportional result If an electoral system is proportional it means that the % of votes cast = % seats of gained. For example, in the 2016 SP election, the Scottish Greens received 6.6% of all regional votes and gained 7.1% of the seats available (6 seats) - this is highly proportional. Such results mean that the people of Scotland are accurately and fairly represented within the Scottish Parliament. AMS ensures that a majority of voters have a chance of gaining representation which reflects their own values which, in turn, should make the Parliament more representative body. Further example: 2011 SP election - Liberal Democrats received 5% of regional votes and gained 3 regional seats.

Strengths of AMS: Smaller Parties often represented/rewarded As AMS provides a roughly proportional result, smaller political parties have a greater chance of gaining seats in the Scottish Parliament. For example, in 2016 the Scottish Green Party gained 6 seats whilst in the Liberal Democrats have consistently had between 5 and 17 MSPs since the first election in 1999. This is an advantage of AMS as it means that many different political opinions are heard in Parliament and that the voices of smaller groups of Scottish citizens are represented at the national level. It can also help ensure that the Scottish Government is held to account as smaller parties will represent the views of the minority.

Strengths of AMS: AMS often produces coalition or minority governments Due to the fact that many seats are awarded on a proportional basis, AMS frequently produces coalition or minority governments as it is difficult for any single party to gain more than 65 seats. The current SNP government is a minority administration whilst the first two elections produced coalitions between Labour and the Liberal Democrats (nicknamed “Lib-Lab”). Coalitions and Minority governments allow for fair representation as they automatically require compromise and cooperation between political parties and therefore voters’ views are far more likely to be reflected in the decisions made in Parliament.

Strengths of AMS: Less Wasted Votes/Greater Representation Due to the Party List system used for the second ballot, far less votes are “wasted” under AMS than if FPTP was used alone. For example, in 2011 in the GLASGOW Region, 3 Labour, 2 SNP, 1 Conservative and 1 Green Party MSP were elected. Had FPTP been used on the second ballot, it is likely only Labour would have won seats. This would have meant the thousands of votes cast for the Conservatives and Green Party would have counted for nothing. Therefore, AMS is far more representative of the voters and citizens have a far wider range of MSPs to approach with potential issues.

Many people do not understand the two separate votes. Weaknesses of AMS: Confusing for Voters Many people do not understand the two separate votes. Despite campaigns by the Electoral Commission and all Scottish political parties, many people still do not full understand the two ballot system. For example, in 2007 about 100,000 ballot papers were rejected as they were incorrectly completed. This means 100,000 people’s votes were not taken into consideration. Many people find the outcome of the election confusing As a result of AMS every person in Scotland is represented by 8 MSPs in total. This can often lead to confusion for constituents as there is no direct link between Regional MSPs and those who voted for them. Remember the 2nd ballot paper lists political parties – not individual candidate names. This has lead to many claims that Regional MSPs are “less useful” or “less important” as people are more likely to know who their constituency MSP is.

Weaknesses of AMS: Creates Coalition/Minority Government Although there are many benefits in having a coalition or minority government there are also distinct disadvantages. In many cases coalition or minority governments struggle to push forward their legislative agenda (they struggle to pass the laws they want or promised too) as there is conflict and a lack of support both within and for these types of government. Minority governments in Scotland have also struggled to push legislation through parliament and maintain legislation as well. In March 2018, all four opposition parties banded together to repeal the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act which was originally put in place by the SNP. The SNP minority government were defeated by 62 votes to 60. Finally, voters never specifically vote for a coalition therefore it is often the case that when parties make agreements with each other this also angers party members and can cause issue within parties as well.

The way in which the Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system works Elections using the Single Transferable Vote (STV) involve multi-member constituencies (wards) each of which have three or four councillors. In each ward, voters will be asked to rank the candidates from most favoured (voter places a 1 in the box) to least favoured (voter will place, for example, a 5 in the box). The number of candidates on a local council ballot paper will often be in double figures. Once all the votes are cast, a mathematical formula is applied to the vote to select the most popular candidates.

Strengths of STV: Less Wasted Votes/High Degree of Proportionality More than an other electoral system, STV ensures that each vote counts. As a QUOTA is required to be reached by candidates, each ballot paper will be counted on numerous occasions. This guarantees that every voter will have had an impact upon the outcome of the election in some way. Overall, this means that the results are HIGHLY proportional and that vast majority of voters will be represented fairly. For example in 2017, across Scotland, Labour gained 20.2% of votes and gained 21.4% of council seats available.

Strengths of STV: Greater Voter Choice When voting through STV each party will have more than one candidate on the ballot paper keeping elected politicians on their toes. There is also a far greater number of independent candidates. This means voters have far greater choice and the ability to truly highlight whether they are happy with the work of elected officials at each election as they have a wide variety of choice. Also there are no more SAFE SEATS as a voter can vote for another candidate in the same party.

Strengths of STV: Fairer and greater representation of the electorate Voters are not limited to one or two choices in local council elections which means that smaller parties and independent candidates are far more likely to be elected. This also means that women and ethnic minority citizens are also more likely to be elected which creates a far greater degree of representation than when FPTP or AMS is used.

Strengths of STV: Eliminates the need for tactical voting As every single vote counts when STV is used there is no need for voters to approach the election negatively. There is a guarantee that, in some way, their vote will count towards a candidate becoming a representative.

Confusing for Voters/Low Voter Turnout Weaknesses of STV: Confusing for Voters/Low Voter Turnout The ballot paper for STV is extremely long, even in comparison to the party list ballot paper in AMS with many different candidates all appearing for the same party. This, coupled with the ranking system, makes STV very confusing for many voters. It is often the case that high numbers of ballot papers are rejected as they have been incorrectly completed. This has also lead to extremely low voter turnout in many cases. The 2012 Scottish Local Council elections had a turnout of just 39.6% and in 2017 it was just 46.9%. This has lead to many claims that STV is not representative of the people at all as less than half of the population are choosing representatives who have a daily impact upon people’s lives. Council – 2017 Elections Turnout East Ayrshire 44% Glasgow 39% East Renfrew-shire 57.8%

Weaknesses of STV: Coalitions or NOCs* are likely to occur - this can lead to compromise politics. The 2017 election means for the first time all 32 councils across Scotland have No Over Control from a political party. When no clear party is in control of a local council it can lead to clear divisions at the local level and often coalitions between parties who traditionally would not work together. Although there are advantages of coalitions, in the case of local councils this can lead to compromise for the sake of comprise and decisions being made negatively to stop other parties from having influence. This is not fair on citizens as ultimately, local council decisions effect everyday life and can often have a lasting impact.

Poor Representation of the people. Weaknesses of STV: Poor Representation of the people. Coalitions create unrepresentative “kingmakers”. Parties with a low % of votes may become leaders in an area due to STV. For example, following the 2017 election in Dumfries and Galloway the Conservatives had the most councillors and the highest level of first-preference votes however the council is currently under SNP-Labour control. Furthermore, having multi-member wards can confuse voters. Who is the true representative and where do the people go for help? Who shall take blame when decisions are negatively effect local people? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zepdf13RJDQ