1. Elections and Voting Systems
Learning Intentions: To examine the advantages of the various voting systems in use in the UK today.
What are the main advantages and disadvantages?

2. Different systems in UK
There are FOUR voting systems in use in the UK at the moment.
The First Past The Post (FPTP) is used for UK General Elections.
The Additional Member System (AMS) is used for Scottish parliament elections.
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is used for Scottish Local authority elections.
The Party List system used for European parliament elections
System 1         FPTP
UK Parliament General Election
System 2         The Additional Member System (AMS)
Scottish Parliament elections
System 3         The Single Transferable Vote (STV)
Northern Ireland
Scottish local government elections from 2007
System 4         Party List system
European Parliament elections

3. First Past the Post
649 “mini” elections go on, one in each constituency (“seats”)
The party that wins the most seats gets, or gets “first past the post” or half of 649 seats, wins the election.

4. FPTP Advantages
FPTP usually produces a decisive result which gives a Government a clear majority to deliver it’s election promises over a five year period. This happened with Tony Blair’s clear victories in 1997, 2001 and 2005.
FPTP also enable by elections to occur during the term of a Parliament. This allows voters to express their dis-satisfaction with the Government of the day, if they choose. For example, by elections to register protest e.g. Glasgow East 2008, Norwich 2009.
A third advantage is that voters have just the one representative who is responsible for their constituency.
Usually produces a decisive result.
The key word here is usually. General Elections; 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2001 and lastly, 2005 all produced a decisive result.
At each of these elections, the voters have had a choice of parties wishing to be in Government. The parties present to the voters their manifesto containing their pledges which would be made into law should they win power.
At each of the above elections, one party has been returned to power with sufficient numbers of MPs getting first past the post to ensure that the Government has a ruling majority over the other parties.
This governing party has a five year term to fulfil the promises it made to the voters. If it cannot deliver those promises, the Government has no-one else to blame – it had the majority in the House of Commons.
At the end of those five years, the voters have judged it a success or not. At the 2005 election, Labour was elected with only 36% of the overall vote. Well, better to please some of the people than have coalitions which please none of the people? But 2010 delivered a coalition government!
Usually delivers stable Government.
Here in the UK we are used to stable Government. By this we mean, General Elections or major changes in Government are few and far between. It may be dull, but it’s good for the economy and our quality of life. Business, especially global business, doesn’t like instability.
It likes to know interest rates, currency rates, inflation rates and government policies over the long term. Governments that change frequently are bad news for the economy, so, it is argued that stable government, even those that have a slightly unfair result, is better than unstable government that PR can bring.
Allows by elections to register protest.
There are usually by-elections in a FPTP voting system. These happen when an MP retires or dies. These can be used by the voters to show their disapproval of a Government which has gone off course. The most recent example of this was the Dunfermline West by election of February The Lib Dem candidate, Willie Rennie, won a “safe” Labour seat. Voters in Dunfermline West took the opportunity to protest against the governing Labour Party.

5. FPTP Disadvantages
Hung parliaments do happen under FPTP. FPTP can create coalition governments as well.
Did anyone vote for a coalition?
Do we get a fair result? In 2005, Labour achieved just 36% of the popular vote yet governed the country for five years. Is this fair?
FPTP usually creates strong government. But is strong government good government e.g. Would we have had Poll the Iraq war if Labour had to share power?
FPTP has created many safe seats for Labour and Conservative parties. It is estimated that 382 out for the 649 Commons seats are “safe”. Why bother voting if you live in one of these seats?
Hung parliaments happen under FPTP.
FPTP doesn’t always produce decisive results. In , Labour had to go into coalition with the Liberal party. In , John Major’s Conservatives went into an informal coalition with the Ulster Unionists. Was it democratic that the Ulster Unionists (who only represent constituencies in Northern Ireland) should run the country? And 2010 brought the historic “Con-Dem” coalition.
Do we get a fair result?
The 2005 General Election was described by the Independent newspaper as THE most unfair election result of all time. Labour is able to run the country, on its own for five years on the basis of 35.2% of the votes cast. The Lib Dems won 22% of the votes but only 10% of the seats.
Is strong government good government?
Stability is good, yes, but is strong government always good government? Is it not better to have an another point of view in Government to produce better Government? There is an argument that says the longer a party is in power on its own, the more likely it is to come up with policies the voters don’t like.
Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives came up with the Poll Tax, a policy so unpopular it led to fighting in the streets and her eventual downfall. Likewise, if Labour had been in coalition, rather than having outright power, would we have had the war in Iraq?
Why bother voting?
Because FPTP is based on winning 645 individual constituencies, parties with a social class base in these constituencies have an advantage. For example, most constituencies in Glasgow are in working class areas where Labour is strongest. Why should a Conservative voter in, for example, Govan, bother to vote?

6. The Additional Member System
AMS is Used for Scottish Parliament elections. It is a hybrid of FPTP and PR systems.
The Scottish parliament has129 MSPs; 73 constituency MSPs and 56 Regional “List” MSPs.
Voters vote twice; The 1st vote elects a constituency MSP, the 2nd vote elects Regional List MSPs
The 2003 Scottish Parliament elections produced another coalition government. Labour, with 50 seats could not form a Scottish Executive with an overall majority.
To do so, it joined up with the Liberal Democrats. Adding their 17 seats, gave the Labour/Lib Dem coalition, an unbeatable.
In 2007, the SNP won the most seats, but, like Labour in 1999 and 2003, did not have an overall majority of the Parliament’s 129 MSPs.
Thjs time though, the SNP were unable to put together a workable coalition.
The result has been minority SNP Government.

7. Advantages of AMS
AMS gives smaller parties a chance of representation. If 5% of voters vote Green, why should the Greens not have 5% of the representation?
Given Scottish voting patterns it is unlikely that any one party will have complete control Parliament. Which should mean that politicians will need to talk to each other, listen and compromise.
Every vote counts. Even in “safe” seats, there is an incentive to vote.
Gives smaller parties a chance.
Not all voters in Scotland support the established parties. Because of the AMS, supporters of the Scottish Socialists, the Greens and the Scottish Senior Citizens parties have had their say in how the country is run. In 2007, these smaller parties were “squeezed out” by the surge in SNP support.
Unlikely any one party will have complete control.
AMS usually leads to coalition government and in the two elections to the Scottish Parliament this has happened. This, it is argued, is a good thing.
The compromise over tuition fees, with repayment of fees postponed until after the student has gained a job with a professional salary is seen as an honourable and sensible policy made after compromise and negotiation between two partners in government. The current minority government will have to compromise with other parties to achieve its flagship policies.
Every vote counts.
In the AMS, every vote is recycled and reallocated, giving every voter in every constituency an incentive to vote.
Increase number of excluded groups in parliament.
Because parties need not disclose the names of their list candidates, it is argued that parties can move away from having the same white, male candidates and have a broader selection of representatives in parliament. The SNP’s Bashir Ahmed is the only minority ethnic member of the Scottish Parliament.

8. An end to one party domination
In 1999 and 2003 Scottish Parliament elections, Labour won the most seats but did not have an overall majority. Labour and the Liberal Democrats entered into a coalition to run Scotland
In 2007, the SNP won the most seats and again did not have an overall majority. It could not agree on terms for a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and has governed as a minority government on an issue by issue basis
The AMS does not guarantee that one party will dominate, but given Scottish voting behaviour, it makes one party domination highly unlikely
The PR element of the AMS voting system has lead to smaller parties being represented. There are 129 MSP (Constituency 73, Regional List 56) This meets the Founding aim of power sharing.
The SNP does well from the party list system, as do the Conservatives and, to a lesser extent the Scottish Greens.
Both of the Greens’ MSPs have been elected from the second, “party list” vote. The Scottish Green Party has been particularly skilled at exploiting the AMS. The Green Party only put up candidates in the second, list election.
The Greens know how the FPTP system works. It knows its voters are spread out and are not concentrated in specific constituencies. The Greens therefore know they have little chance of winning any constituency MSPs. In all likelihood, the party would lose a lot of money in lost deposits too.
Arguably, the creation of the Scottish Parliament with its AMS, saved the Scottish Conservatives from political extinction. It is one of the great ironies that the Conservatives originally opposed both the Scottish Parliament, and its voting system!
In 1999, all 18 of the Conservatives MSPs were from the second, List vote. In 2003, the Conservatives managed to have three MSPs elected from constituencies, but the other fifteen are from the second, List vote.

9. Disadvantages of AMS
AMS produces “unelected” MSPs. For example, the SNP’s List MSP Stefan Tymkewycz resigned just a few weeks after becoming an MSP. There was no by-election. Instead the SNP could choose any party member to replace him as an MSP. It chose Shirley-Anne Sommerville. Does this make the party machine more powerful than voters?
MSP turf wars. Do List MSPs tread on the turf of constituency MSPs, who think of themselves as the real MSP?
AMS disadvantages
Unelected MSPs.
In June 2007, SNP MSP Stefan Tymkewycz stood down as an MSP just months after being elected to Holyrood. He was replaced by Shirley-Anne Somerville as a Lothians list MSP. While Shirley-Anne Somerville may well be an excellent MSP, the fact remains that she is unelected! MSP turf wars?
Who is the “real” MSP for your area? Is it the constituency MSP or is it one of your other seven list MSPs? Which one should you turn to? Who should get the credit for improving your area? If life in your area is not so good, are you “blaming” the right person or is it nothing to do with them?
There is no doubt there is rivalry between the two “classes” of MSP in the Scottish Parliament. The constituency MSPs think of themselves as “real” MSPs and sometimes resent the “encroachment” of list MSPs on their turf.
Parties more powerful than voters.
In some parties, the place on the party list is more important than connecting with voters. Most of the Conservative and SNP MSPs are list MSPs. To become an MSP for these parties, it is more important to appeal to small groups of party diehards than it is to communicate with the voters. 1st or 2nd place on the Conservative or SNP party list will mean you have a good chance of getting elected to the Scottish Parliament.
The voter need never even know your name.
Government no-one voted for.
At least under FPTP, you have your choice. Your party may not win, but at lest you know what your are going to get from the other lot.
In an AMS coalition, you can have a “partnership” that was never on any ballot paper and policies that no one had the chance to vote for. For example, the Lib Dems finished 4th in the last Scottish Parliament election. Is it fair that they should be running the country with Labour? Who voted for this?

10. AMS Voting shouldn’t be complicated..
Voters place an “X” on the constituency ballot paper for the party/individual they want to voter for
Voters then place an “X” on the regional ballot paper for the party they want to vote for
Should be dead simple..
First Vote in Scottish Parliamentary elections. Place an X next to the candidate of your choice. How complicated is that?
Second vote in Scottish Parliamentary Elections. Place an X next to the party of your choice. How complicated is that?

11. But in 2007 it wasn’t!
In 2007, there were an estimated 142,000 “lost” votes. Why?
Voters were confused by having two elections on same day (Scottish parliament and local council elections) which used two different voting systems.
There was also a single ballot paper for the two votes for the Scottish Parliament election which again confused voters.
An international expert has been appointed by the Electoral Commission to head up a wide-ranging review of the Scottish elections.
Ron Gould has been involved with more than 100 election observation missions.
Many voters were confused by 2 different voting systems being used on the same day.
Confusion also reigned over the “List” ballot paper being placed to the left of the constituency paper.
The SNP used this to their advantage by placing “Alex Salmond for First minister” gaining top position on the list paper alphabetically.
In several seats, none more so than in Cunninghame North where the SNP’s Kenny Gibson won by 48 votes, the number of spoilt papers was higher than the winning candidates’ majority.
There would appear to be a social class divide in the spoilt paper issue. The highest number of spoilt ballots came in inner city areas, while the lowest came in more affluent, rural areas.
5 highest number of spoilt ballots 5 lowest number of spoilt ballots
Edinburgh East and Musselburgh 2,521 Orkney 285
Glasgow Pollok 2,106 Shetland 294
Glasgow Shettleston 2,035 Western Isles 446
Edinburgh West 1,905 Roxburgh and Berwickshire 599
Glasgow Maryhill 1,877 Stirling 633

12. Single Transferable Vote
STV was introduced in Scotland in 2007 for the local Government elections. STV has multi member constituencies. Voting is easy. Voters rank candidates 1 – whatever, in order of preference. They can vote for different members of the same party or vote for different parties. It is up to the voter.

13. Advantages of STV
All votes count. STV voting is highly proportional. So voters should get what they voted for.
STV ends “safe seats”, giving new or previously disadvantaged parties a greater chance.
STV empowers voters, not political parties. Voters have multiple choices, not just one vote.
STV means that deadbeat politicians can be rejected by the voters. No politician can take their seat for granted. In these days of expense scandals, representatives need to be more accountable.
Allows voter to choose within parties.
The added value of STV is that it allows voters to choose within as well as outside of parties. For example, you may be a Labour voter but dislike the Labour candidate. You can now cast you vote for the Labour candidate you do like, ignoring your disliked one.
Alternatively, you could like a Conservative candidate, but not the Conservative party. You can now vote for this candidate but not the others the Conservatives put forward.
All votes count.
Just like the AMS, all votes are tallied up and reallocated. Incidentally, a voter does not have to use all the votes he/she has.
He/she can rank in order of preference but if there is only one he/she wishes to vote for he/she simply writes in “1” beside that name and walks away. Simple!
Give smaller parties a greater chance.
Like the AMS, the STV gives smaller parties a better chance of getting elected. This is why Labour councillors in our big cities are so opposed to AMS. They know FPTP suits them and many are likely to lose their seats in 2007.
Empowers voters, not political parties.
A disadvantage of the AMS is that the closed lists (where parties need not declare their candidates’ names) happen. Under STV, this does not happen. Voters therefore have more choice. Choice in picking people and choice in picking parties.

14. Disadvantages of STV
It is harder for smaller parties to be elected than with the AMS. The “threshold to be elected in higher.
Multi members could, in theory, confuse voters. Who does a voter go to? If he/she goes to one Councillor will the others be offended?
STV often leads to coalition government. This, in theory, could create unrepresentative and potentially unpleasant “kingmakers”.
Harder for smaller parties than AMS.
The AMS has a smaller threshold than STV. This means that it usually only takes about 4% of votes to elect a MSP under the list system, but it will probably take about 7% to elect a representative under STV. Therefore, in terms of helping smaller parties, the AMS is better than the STV.
Multi members confuse voters.
Under STV there are bigger constituencies, which in the case of rural, highland Scotland may not be a good thing, with the obvious difficulties of transport.
There is also the same problem the AMS has with “where does the buck stop”? Who is the representative who is responsible for decisions taken at a local level?
Voters have more than one local representative and each could blame the other for not getting things done.
Could create unrepresentative “kingmakers”.
Just like the AMS, we can have a situation where one party, e.g. the Liberal Democrats, can have a disproportionate amount of power to their support in the country. In theory, it could be the racist BNP.

15. Multi-party local government
In 2007, the STV destroyed Labour’s power base in Scottish local authorities
The SNP now has more local councillors than any other party
Coalition government is now the norm in Scotland.
South Lanarkshire and East Dunbartonshire Councils, for example, have a Labour/Conservative coalition, something which would have been unthinkable prior to devolution
Prior to the 2007 Scottish local government elections, the Scottish Labour Party dominated Scotland’s 32 local authorities. However, the introduction of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting system as well as increased support for the SNP changed the political complexion of Scottish Local government. Most councils in Scotland are now coalitions, where no one party has overall political control.

16. So what does this all mean?
The issues are complex.
There is no one perfect system.
All voting systems have their strengths and weaknesses.
Provide up to date examples of good points and bad points of each system.
But keep away from lazy answers e.g.
“PR systems are complicated” (they’re not),
“it takes ages to add up the votes” (not that long!)
“FPTP avoids coalitions”. It doesn’t!
The issues are complex. These are complex debates and it does you no harm to acknowledge that there are no easy answers. All voting systems have their strengths and weaknesses.
There is no one perfect system. There are few black and white areas and lots of shades of grey!
But keep away from lazy answers.