How do we elect our representatives?

DO NOWStudy the charts on your table showing general election turnout by various social groups in 2010. Based on this data, construct a description of the type of person most likely to have voted. What other factors would you imagine to have influenced turnout? What does this say about enfranchisement and representation in the UK?

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

No qualifications

GCSE

A level

Technical

Professional

Degree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Bottom third

Middle third

Top third

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Manual

Other non-manual

Professional/managerial

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Turnout by age group, 2010

Turnout by highest educational qualification, 2010 Turnout by employment status, 2010

Turnout by income bracket, 2010

Social renters

Manual workers

Aged 18-24

Agricultural workers

Persons per hectare

Private renters

Graduate

Ethnic minority

Aged 65+

No car

Professional & managerial

Owner-occupiers

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Learning objectives

• To explain the operation of the first-past-the-post voting system

• To explore its operation in the 2010 general election

• To evaluate the effects of FPTP on British democracy

Unit 1 topics

1. Participation and voting behaviour2. Electoral systems3. Political parties4. Pressure groups and protest movements

Parliament

What is an electoral system?

An electoral system is a set of rules governing the conduct of an election. In a healthy democracy, these rules aim to produce:

1. A healthy level of enfranchisement that encourages political participation

2. A fair choice for voters with a range of different political views

3. A legislature that broadly represents the political views of the electorate

4. A strong, stable and effective government with recognized democratic legitimacy

Types of voting system

There are six voting systems with which you must become familiar.

1. First-Past-The- Post (FPTP)2. Alternative Vote (AV)3. Supplementary Vote (SV)4. Single Transferable Vote (STV)5. Additional Member System (AMS)6. Proportional Representation (PR)

‘There is no such thing as a perfect electoral system.’ Discuss, with reference to electoral systems used in the UK.

Key question

First-Past-The-PostUnder a FPTP system the country in question is divided up into areas known as Constituencies.

Constituencies are designed to be of similar size in terms of their population, e.g. in the UK the average is just under 70k people

Each Constituency elects one representative (MP).

Under FPTP the winning candidate is the one who gets the most votes. This is called a simple plurality.

a.k.a.“winner takes all”

a.k.a.Single-member plurality

system (SMPS)

What does that look like?

Here are a sample of FPTP at its best and worst in 2010.

Constituency 1 Constituency 2 Constituency 3 Constituency 4Total votes: 54,694

Total votes: 47,368

Total votes: 51,487

Total votes: 50,600

Conservative- 19,461Labour- 18,088Lib Dem- 15, 094UKIP- 1,624Green Party- 427

Conservative- 17,860Labour- 17,666Lib Dem- 8,724Plaid Cymru- 1,588UKIP- 1,530

Lib Dem- 30,896Conservative- 18,632Labour- 1,158UKIP- 801

Green Party- 16,238Labour- 14,928Conservative- 12,275Lib Dem- 7,159

Odd facts about FPTPa 1. The smallest majority in the 2010 General

Election was for Michelle Gildernew who won by only 4 votes

2. The largest majority in the 2010 General Election was for Stephen Timms who won by 27,826 votes

3. The smallest constituency in the UK is Na h-Eileanan An Iar with 21,884 members.

4. The largest constituency in the UK is the Isle of Wight with 103,480 members

5. The highest turnout ever for a General Election was 83.9% in 1950

6. The lowest turnout ever for a General Election was 59.4% in 2001

7. The biggest ever win was by Labour in 1997 with 418 seats

• FPTP creates a close geographical link between voters and their member of parliament, potentially making that representative more accountable.

• FPTP encourages ('broad-church‘, ‘big tent’) centrist policies. • Voters can express a clear view on which party they think should form the

next government. • FPTP tends to produce a two-party political system (Duvergers law) and

single-party governments; these tend to be more stable because they don't have to rely on support from other parties to pass legislation.

• FPTP is simple to understand; people rarely challenge the result of FPTP elections.

• FPTP elections are quick and (relatively) easy to administer, meaning results can be declared only a few hours after polls close.

• Election spending is geared towards only a small portion of the country, keeping costs down.

• People are often fearful of change and slow to adapt, thus as we already have FPTP, we may as well keep it.

Arguments in favour of FPTP

Arguments against FPTP• FPTP routinely produces governments with a minority of popular support. No

single-party government was won a majority of the popular vote since 1945.• Major party’s representation in the HOC is disproportionate; hence the HOC fails

to represent the diversity of political opinion in the UK. Parties with a significant share of the popular vote go un- or under-represented, e.g. Greens.

• FPTP also rewards parties with 'lumpy' support, such as regional parties. For example, in 2005 the DUP won nine seats on 0.9% of the popular vote, yet the Greens won no seats, despite polling almost 16,000 more votes than the DUP.

• Votes are (in practice) of unequal value, encouraging either tactical voting or political disengagement by dissenting voters in ‘safe’ seats. − Too many voters are wasted—over 19m in 2005. − By contrast, voters in ‘swing seats’ have disproportionate influence in framing

policy.• Voters have no input into the selection of candidates; they can only vote for

candidates once they have been selected.

General election, 2010

General election, 2010

UK general election turnout, 1918-2010

Party share of the vote, 1945-2010

‘Wasted’ votes• In the 2010, over half of those

who voted failed to elect their chosen candidate

• In addition, almost one fifth of votes were cast in excess of those necessary to secure a candidates victory—most of these being votes for dominant parties in ‘safe’ seats

• These votes are sometimes described as ‘wasted’ because they did not affect a Parliamentary outcome

28.9

18.3

52.8

Needed to win Winning surplusFor losing candidtes

Minority winners

Unequal votes

Disproportional resultsFPTP exaggerates the electoral success of the bigger parties. The 2010 General Election is a good example:

Disproportional results

Electoral ‘deserts’

Electoral deserts can be said to exist when a party lacks any parliamentary representation across an entire region, despite having a significant share of the popular vote

Labour’s advantage

In 1997, the Labour Party, with 43.2% of the national vote (13,518,167 votes) won 418 seats (63.2% of the seats) in the HOC.

In 1992, the Conservative Party won 41.9% of the national vote (14,093,007 votes) won 336 seats (51.7%) of the seats in the HOC.

Labour’s advantage

• The average ‘safe’ Labour seat tends to be smaller in population terms than the average ‘safe’ Conservative seat;

• Labour’s average margin of victory tends to be narrower than the average Conservative margin;

• Turnout in Labour-held seats tends to be lower than in Conservative-held seats

Labour typically wins more seats for a smaller share of the popular vote for three reasons:

Some commentators argue that FPTP accentuates the economic, social and geographical divisions in the country, leading to the practical over-representation of certain social groups and regions and the virtual under-representation of others.

Divided Britain

Divided Britain

Turnout by party identification

Very strongly Fairly strongly Not very strongly None0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1997200120052010

Peter Pulzer concluded that, ‘class is the basis of British party politics; all else is embellishment and detail’. Discuss

Key question

Strenth? The MP-constituency linkAll these MPs represent a community somewhere in the UK. We may not know who all of them are, but they are familiar faces to their constituents.

They will have close(ish) bonds with their communities and attend regular(ish) MP surgeries with local constituents over important local issues.

Constituents will primarily vote on local issues; if an MP fails to address these then they run the real risk of being voted out.

This degree of face-to-face contact should make MPs more accountable.

Weakness? Tactical votingTactical Voting is where a citizen votes for a candidate who is not their first choice because this candidate has more chance of winning the seat. This has become increasingly popular amongst Labour voters in Conservative strongholds, voting Liberal Democrat to unseat a Tory. It is also a feature for Liberal Democrats in Conservative strongholds where Labour are second.

The Independent Commission on Electoral Reform (1997)

• Convened by Tony Blair during this first term as Prime Minister

• Chaired by Lord Jenkins (right)• Specified four criteria against which any

electoral system could be judged: (i) proportionality, (ii) stable government, (iii) voter choice, and (iv) the MP-constituency link

• The subsequent Jenkins Report recommended a system of ‘Alternative Vote+’

• Rejected by Labour because the inherent bias in the FPTP voting system appeared to advantage them vs the Tories

• A referendum took place on Thursday 5 May 2011, resulting in an 67.9% "No" vote, in favour of keeping the existing "first-past-the-post"; verses 32.1% "Yes" in favour of Moving to AV.

• Of 440 voting areas (based on Parliamentary constituencies) only 10 returned "yes" votes in favour of AV (alternative vote), of which six were in London—the others being Oxford and Cambridge, Edinburgh Central and Glasgow Kelvin.

The Coalition’s reform efforts

‘The first-past-the-post system used in elections to the Westminster Parliament is unfair and should be replaced.’ Discuss.

Key question

STUDENT RESOURCES

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

No qualifications

GCSE

A level

Technical

Professional

Degree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Bottom third

Middle third

Top third

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Manual

Other non-manual

Professional/managerial

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Turnout by age group, 2010

Turnout by highest educational qualification, 2010 Turnout by employment status, 2010

Turnout by income bracket, 2010

• FPTP creates a close geographical link between voters and their member of parliament, potentially making that representative more accountable.

• FPTP encourages ('broad-church‘, ‘big tent’) centrist policies. • Voters can express a clear view on which party they think should form the

next government. • FPTP tends to produce a two-party political system (Duvergers law) and

single-party governments; these tend to be more stable because they don't have to rely on support from other parties to pass legislation.

• FPTP is simple to understand; people rarely challenge the result of FPTP elections.

• FPTP elections are quick and (relatively) easy to administer, meaning results can be declared only a few hours after polls close.

• Election spending is geared towards only a small portion of the country, keeping costs down.

• People are often fearful of change and slow to adapt, thus as we already have FPTP, we may as well keep it.

Arguments in favour of FPTP

Arguments against FPTP• FPTP routinely produces governments with a minority of popular support. No

single-party government was won a majority of the popular vote since 1945.• Major party’s representation in the HOC is disproportionate; hence the HOC fails

to represent the diversity of political opinion in the UK. Parties with a significant share of the popular vote go un- or under-represented, e.g. Greens.

• FPTP also rewards parties with 'lumpy' support, such as regional parties. For example, in 2005 the DUP won nine seats on 0.9% of the popular vote, yet the Greens won no seats, despite polling almost 16,000 more votes than the DUP.

• Votes are (in practice) of unequal value, encouraging either tactical voting or political disengagement by dissenting voters in ‘safe’ seats. − Too many voters are wasted—over 19m in 2005. − By contrast, voters in ‘swing seats’ have disproportionate influence in framing

policy.• Voters have no input into the selection of candidates; they can only vote for

candidates once they have been selected.

OTHER SYSTEMS

Round 2

Alternative Vote

Alternative Culture

Obviously we don’t have the Alternative Vote in the UK, however it's worth knowing about how AV works so that if we get an exam question on it… We could easily answer it.

AV is a Preferential System in which a voter is asked to rank candidates in order of preference.

For a candidate to win a seat they must secure 50% or more of the overall votes (therefore having a majority).

AV- CountLet’s use the example of Warrington South. The results on 1st preference look like this:

David Mowat- Conservative- 19,641Nick Bent- Labour- 18,088Jo Crotty- Liberal Democrat- 15,094James Ashington UKIP- 1,624Steph Davies- Green- 427

Overall Turnout = 54,974Amount needed under AV=27,487

So there is no winner yet!

Round 2

We remove the last place candidate and give their second choices to the other parties. Assuming that Greens may vote Labour or Lib Dem:

David Mowat- Conservative- 19,641

Nick Bent- Labour- 18,301

Jo Crotty- Liberal Democrat- 15,308

James Ashington- UKIP- 1,624

Amount needed under AV= 27,487

Still no winner.

Round Eyed Girl

Round 3With no winner we now remove the UKIP candidate and allocate their 3rd Preference. Would they vote Tory?

David Mowat- Conservative- 21,265Nick Bent- Labour- 18,301Jo Crotty- Liberal Democrat- 15,308

Amount needed under AV= 27,487

Still no winner.

Round 4Now we remove the 3rd Placed Liberal Democrats and allocate their fourth choice. Now assuming that about 75% would vote Labour. The final result looks like:

1.*Nick Bent- Labour- 29,782*2.David Mowat- Conservative- 25,092

So in the final round Labour win. Bear in mind this is a rough outline. I'm making generalisations on voting trends. However it is an entirely possible outcome.

The Mad, The Bad and the AVAlternative Most1. Every candidate elected has 50%

of the constituents voting for them.

2. The elected candidate is broadly popular with all members of a constituency, not just a chosen majority.

3. It still keeps the MP and Constituency link favoured under FPTP.

4. It works. It has been used in Australian General Elections since 1924.

Alternative Woes1.It isn’t a Proportional system. If used on the 1997 General Election result it would have given Labour an even bigger majority (77% of seats).2. The candidate with the most 1st preference votes isn’t guaranteed victory, as shown by my example.3. There is a small chance that extreme fourth and fifth choice candidates and voters may hold the balance of power.

Round 3

Supplementary Vote

SupplementsThe Supplementary Vote is already used in the UK. We use it in all elections for Elected Mayors, such as Boris Johnson. It’s a shortened Version of the Alternative Vote (we still need over 50% to win) system, in that a voter only puts down their 1st and 2nd preference. Let’s apply it to the London Mayoral Elections.

London Elections 2008- 1st PreferenceBoris Johnson- Conservative- 1,043,761Ken Livingstone- Labour- 893,877Brian Paddick- Lib Dem- 236,685Sian Berry- Green- 77,374Richard Barnbrook- BNP- 69,710Alan Craig- Christian Alliance- 39,249Gerard Batten- UKIP- 22,422Lindsey German- Left List- 16,796Winston McKenzie- Independent- 5,389

Supplementary My Dear WatsonIn the second round of Supplementary Voting we remove ALL candidates except the top two and we allocate all the votes based on people’s second preference. So the contest looks like this, I’ve included the other candidates so you can see how each person did:

Second PreferenceBoris Johnson- Conservative- 257,792Ken Livingstone- Labour- 303,198Brian Paddick- Lib Dem- 641,412Sian Berry- Green- 331,727Richard Barnbrook- BNP- 128,609Alan Craig- Christian Alliance- 80,140Gerard Batten- UKIP- 113,651Lindsey German- Left List- 35,057Winston McKenzie- Independent- 38,954

Final

Boris Johnson- Conservative- 1,168,738

Ken Livingstone- Labour- 1,028,966

Do’s and Don'tsSupplementaryes1. The winning candidate (shown by

Boris) must have a broad 50% of support across the electorate.

2. It eliminates the risks under AV of 3rd Choice minor parties sneaking in. As this system only looks at the top 2 candidates.

3. It works. The Supplementary is used widely in the UK and across Europe. It gives a strong mandate like FPTP and has the majoritarian aspect of AV.

Supplemeno1. The winner as shown by Boris in

2008 might not be the most popular 2nd Choice but gets through because no-one got as many 1st choice votes.

2. Even if we used this in the General Elections it would not deliver a fair result. In fact it would further exaggerate the majorities that parties get.

3. It is deeply punishing to minor parties such as the Greens and UKIP who’s 2nd Preference status is essentially ignored.

Round 4

Regional Lists (Proportional Representation)

Proportional Explanation

There are a number of different ways of having elections using Proportional Representation. Since 1999 we have use a system of PR called the Regional List system for elections to the European Parliament.

For EU Parliamentary Elections, the UK is divided up into 11 multi-member constituencies. Each constituency votes for the party they prefer.

When the votes are counted the parties get a number of MEPs roughly in proportion with the amount of votes they received.

How To Stop A Problem Like Nick Griffin

Britain uses what’s know as a ‘Closed List System’. What this means for us plebes at the bottom is essentially we don’t pick our MEP, the party pick it for us.

Each party ranks their candidates numerically. The more popular you are the closer to no.1 you are.

When the seats are given to the parties they pick their MEPs based on who’s ranked highest on their own list.

Note how Nick Griffin is no.1 on the BNP list and the BNP got 2 seats.

Fair Share- European Parliament Election Results

Party Percentage of Vote No. of Seats

Conservative 27.7% 25 (36%)

UKIP 16.5% 13 (19%)

Labour 15.7% 13 (19%)

Liberal Democrat 13.7% 11 (16%)

Green 8.6% 2 (3%)

BNP 6.2% 2 (3%)

SNP 2.1% 2 (3%)

Plaid Cymru 0.8% 1 (3%)

Regional Accents

Proportional1. This is the most proportional of all

the systems. The more votes a party gets the more seats they get.

2. Smaller parties which are popular but struggle in General Elections (e.g. UKIP and Greens) can turn this into seats at a European level.

3. The list system allows parties to naturally increase the number of female and ethnic minority candidates by placing them higher up the list.

Conportional 1. People don’t know who exactly

they are voting for. MEPs tend to have very weak links to their constituencies.

2. The parties control who gets picked by placing them on lists. The top candidate might not be the best but the most loyal to the party.

3. It isn’t totally perfect. The regions in the UK are of different size meaning it is harder for the Greens in England to get elected than the SNP in Scotland.

Round 5

Single Transferable Vote

What Is STV?The Single Transferable Vote system is a voting system based on quotas of voters (jokes about Poets come to mind). It is used in the Northern Irish Stormont Elections and Parliamentary elections in the Republic of Ireland.1. The old constituency model of FPTP still exists, however constituencies have

multiple members elected to Parliament.2. Voters are asked to rank candidates numerically in order of preference.

Therefore we firstly look at voters first preference. 3. If after counting the first preference, there is no winner, then we look at the

second preference and count these as well. We continue right through all the ranked preferences until we have enough candidates to fill all the seats. The lowest ranked candidate is removed and their preferences are then allocated.

4. It is also crucial to note that once a candidate has enough votes for a seat, any additional votes for them are ignored and we instead look at other choices.

The winning candidates for each are the ones that get a specific quota of votes. This quota is decided using a specific formula.

Quota Me In For A Late Shift!Behold! The Droop Formula to work out how many votes will be needed for any candidate to win a seat in a constituency. Each candidate would need to reach this quota in their constituency (though it will change in each constituency).

Quota= Total Valid Votes +1 Total Number of seats +1

Let’s put that Droop formula into practice!

(The number of votes needed to win a seat)

Dr Droop Doggy Snogg

Lets put this Droop-tastic formula into practice:e.g. Knowsley- Voting Population= 44,654 Representatives- 3 (it’s a big place that's why!) So......

Quota= 44,654 + 1 Quota= 44,654 +1 3+1 4

Quota= 11,163.5 + 1

Quota to win 1 seat = 11,164.5

Recap

So if for example the candidates in Knowsley are:

George Howarth- LabourFlo Clucas- Liberal DemocratsDavid Dunne- ConservativeSteven Greenhalgh- BNPAnthony Rundle- UKIP

There are 3 seats up for grabs!So each candidate is going to need 11,165 votes. Realistically who do we think can get that?

Ohh No! I’ve Got An STV (Voting System)

The most often cited example of an STV in operation is the Northern Ireland elections to Stormont. Below are the 2011 elections (more are due in 2015). These are the most recent results:

Democratic Unionist Party- 38 seats (30.1%)Sinn Fein- 29 seats (26.9%)Ulster Unionist Party- 16 seats (13.2%)Social Democrat and Labour Party- 14 seats (14.2%)Alliance Party- 8 seats (7.7%)

What is worth noting is that these where the 1st free elections in Northern Ireland for many years. The results show that STV has provided a careful balance between the Loyalists and the Republicans. No one party can dominate in its views. Of all the votes cast, over 80% were used to contribute to the final result.What do you think this means?

You Were Made For Me… Everybody Tells Me So!

a Firstly a big thanks to the BBC on this. After the General Election they looked at how that result would have looked if voters had used the Single Transferable Vote system.

The most obvious point is that it doesn’t actually change the single biggest party in Parliament. The Conservatives are still the winners, however this time its much closer.

Labour are much much closer and the Liberal Democrats are now an established 3rd party who will be a large partner in any likely coalition.

And as we can see the fringe parties have trebled their share of seats!

Strength In NumbersThe following are the good bits about STV. However it’s a like a coin, this debate has TWO sides!

1. Proportional2. Fair Play3. Choice4. Representation5. Successful

Proportional RepresentationOne of the biggest flaws of the FPTP system is that votes will be worth more depending what part of the country we live in. However under STV all this changes. Because we can numerically rank our choices and that each constituency has more then one representative, the result becomes a lot fairer. If you look at the UK as a whole, this also has wider implications. Because each constituency has a quota system, overall candidates around the country need similar votes to be selected.

According to the BBC, each potential candidate will need between 15,000-20,000 votes to win a seat, irrespective of where that seat actually is.

Fair Play LeagueIf winning is the aim, then STV is the game.To get a majority in Parliament under the STV system it makes sense that across the whole country that particular party must have gained over 50% of the popular vote. Not only that but likelihood is they are at least our 1st or 2nd Choice.

So if you get over 50% of the vote the likelihood is your going to get wider support across society and generally the Government is likely to have a bigger incentive to Govern in the wider political interest of the voters.

Key questions

1. What is the purpose of elections, do they give recruitment, legitimacy or accountability?

2. What types of electoral system are there?3. What results do they give?4. How do we define the success of these systems?

So Much ChoiceaIt’s most definitely all about personal choice with STV. Whereas with FPTP you only get one chance to make it count… You might never get this moment again.

Under STV you can genuinely vote for the Liberal Democrats in a safe Labour seat, You can vote for the BNP in Burnley, you can vote Conservative in Scotland and just to be awkward you can vote both Loyalist and Republican in Northern Ireland.

Unlike AV this system doesn’t create instability by requiring 51% for a winner, instead we have a specific fair quota for 2 or more players.

Representation and JubilationsUnder STV each constituency has a number of representatives relative to the size of its electorate. Clearly this means:

More Voters = More Representatives = More Political Clout

So a large seat like Knowsley might have 2 or 3 representatives whereas a smaller seat like the Orkney Islands will get 2. This seems a lot fairer doesn’t it?

Incidentally because the quota will vary depending on the electorate it ends the idea of safe seats.

Top Of The Tops!.We built this system, we built this system on Single Transferable Vote success to paraphrase KISS.

The STV system already works with great success in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. What a baptism of fire!

Point is if it can effectively provide sound Government for such political partisan communities, it might work a treat in the idyllic political backdrop that is England.

I Can’t Wait For The Weakness To Begin

Again its all very nice to know what's good about STV, but what about the bad stuff. The path to A’s and B’s is littered with smashing strengths AND weaknesses.

1. Accuracy2. Votes vs. Seats3. Losing Touch4. Coalition Bonanza5. Complex

Is STV Wide Of The Mark?Now we’re getting into the big problems. Because STV uses a quota, once your candidate is over that quota voting stops for that person. So remember in the new and improved Knowsley we said our Quota was 11,165?

Well here’s how it panned out in 2010:

George Howarth (Labour)- 31,650Flo Clucas (Lib Dem)- 5,960David Dunne (Conservative)- 4,004Steven Greenhalgh (BNP) – 1,895Anthony Rundle (UKIP) – 1,145

Signed, Sealed The Winner I’m Yours!

Under the STV system only George has cleared the 11,165 vote quota (and by quite a margin) so he is automatically selected. The other 20,485 Labour voters are discounted here and we instead look at their second choice!

So an obvious (but not inevitable) beneficiary would be Flo Clucas who would possibly get some of that lovely bounty of 2nd preference votes.

How likely is it Conservative Dave would get any?

Who do we think could be our number 3 candidate in Knowsley?

Is it me or do you get a sneaking suspicion the BNP might just crawl over the quota?

Votes vs. Seats (Cue Rocky Theme Music)

Despite the fact that STV is a lot fairer then FPTP, there’s no hiding from the fact that it still isn’t totally fair. Those 20,000 odd people who’s Labour votes where ignored aren’t happy and I imagine the Conservative, BNP and UKIP won’t be too happy at getting in as a 3rd choice... If at all.Fact is Proportional results represent the whole of society much better.

Your Out Of Touch, Your Out Of Time

We’ve all had a good moan about the fact that George never comes to visit. But you can imagine it would be a whole lot worse if we had multiple representatives, especially if they are all from different bits of Knowsley.You can also bet that they would becomeMore aligned to their Westminster PartiesThen their constituents.

Don’t Be Shy Nick Go Bonanza!As mentioned before the STV system makes it a whole lot closer in terms of the results. This also practically guarantees that Governments will be Coalitions in future. Remember what we said about FPTP?If you use FPTP you probably don’t like coalitions, they are seen as weak and ineffective. And right before your eyes you have a voting system which gives us..... Lots of Coalitions.

For Life's’ Little ComplexitiesDo you remember when the winner was the geezer with the highest number of votes? Weren't they the best times?

Then all of a sudden STV comes along with it’s complex formulas and illogical quota system. Does it have the same magic as a FPTP results night?

Does it heck.

Point is it isn’t immediately obvious who’s won and that's bound to turn people off politics.

Round 5

Additional Member System

It’s ComplicatedThe Additional Member System (AMS) is the name given to a hybrid electoral system in which a proportion of the representatives are selected using the good old First-Past-The-Post system, and the rest are allocated on the basis of Proportional Representation.

While this all sounds a bit foreign, it’s used with great success in Scotland for the Holyrod elections. So to recap

AMS= FPTP + PR

How Does It Work?The First-Past-The-Post Bit

This would operate the same way as FPTP in the UK. However crucially not all the seats in Parliament are available under FPTP. So if we use the UK as an example:

Overall Seats: 650Seats Under FPTP: (e.g.) 325

The Proportional Representation BitWhat's different is that the rest of the seats are allocated under PR. 1. Voters fill in 2 slips, 1 for their MP

and a second for their preferred party.

2. The second slips are counted and the remaining seats are allocated based on their share of the vote.

D’Hondt If You Love VotingTo allocate seats under the AMS system each seat is allocated in rounds. In each round we use the following formula is:

Extra Seat = Total Votes For Party +1 Total Seats Owned

So for all the 325 seats up for grabs we would use this system EVERY single time and for every single party. The party with the highest figure for each round wins the seat.

* However to qualify for this the party must reach a threshold (percentage) of the overall votes cast. (E.g. In Germany and Scotland it’s 5%).

Bear With Me…..

D’Hondt If You Love Voting

No. Extra Seats= Total Votes for Party Total Seats Owned + 1

(Say we want to add a further 3 seats)Consider the following from the General Election 2010Conservative- 10,726,614 (306)Labour- 8,609,527 (258)Lib Dem- 6,836,824 (57)DUP- 168,216 (8) SNP- 491,386 (6)Plaid Cmyru- 165,394 (3)

Under the D’Hondt system the Lib Dems would accumulate a large number Of extra seats.

Round 1Tory= 10,726,614/307= 34,940Labour= 8,609,527/259= 33,241Lib Dem= 6,836,824/58= 117,871SNP= 491,386/7= 70,198DUP= 168, 216/9= 18,691Plaid= 165,394/4= 41,349

Round 2Tory= 10,726,614/307= 34,940Labour= 8,609,527/259= 33,241Lib Dem= 6,836,824/59= 115,873SNP= 491,386/7= 70,198DUP= 168,216/9= 18,691Plaid= 165,394/4= 41,349

Round 3Tory= 10,726,614/307Labour= 8,609,527/259= 33,241Lib Dem= 6,836,824/60= 113,947SNP= 491,386/7= 70,198DUP= 168,216/9= 18,691Plaid= 165,394/4= 41,349

It’s Grim Up North (Of The Border)The most obvious example of AMS in action is for the Scottish Parliamentary Elections. Let’s look at how they roll and see if we can learn anything.

Scottish Parliament- FPTP- Part 1In Scotland 73 of the Parliamentary seats are decided using FPTP system. The results are below.

SNP- 53Labour- 15Conservatives- 3Liberal Democrats- 2

Scottish Parliament- PR- Part 2In Scotland 56 of the Parliamentary seats are allocated using the PR system. Results below:

Labour- 22SNP- 16Conservatives- 12Liberal Democrats- 3Greens- 2

The big winners here are the SNP who are the largest single party and the Conservatives who treble their share of the vote!

II Love AMS, Put Another Vote In The System Baby!

Here we go it’s Strengths of the Additional Member System time!

1. Proportional2. Representation3. Choice4. Simple-ish5. Threshold

Your All In ProportionFinally you now have a system which has all the stability of FPTP, but also has the proportionality of PR. It takes account of the wider political mood of the nation rather then a narrow campaign amongst swing voters.

So whilst the FPTP system still operates, we also have a second vote on much broader terms in which voters say who they want NATIONALLY! For the P.R. Part of the system each party puts forward a list of candidates and depending upon how many seats they are allocated under the P.R. a number of candidates from each list are sent to Government.

The Representation Of The PeopleUnder P.R. there are no individual communities only areas which vote for a party and that party produces a list of people they want. Depending on that parties’ share of the vote a specific number of candidates on that list will be selected as representatives.

The most obvious example of this in practice is the European Parliamentary elections.

However with AMS we still keep our constituencies….Yehy!

Choice Your Words CarefullyYou get two voting slips:1. Vote for your regional representative.2. Vote for your party of choice.

Whilst this does allow an element of the ‘Safe Seat’ culture we get under FPTP, it allows a cheeky outlet for voters to express themselves properly in the second vote.

Not only that but the system deliberately rewards parties that struggle to get seats under FPTP (I.e. the Liberal Democrats).

Simple-ish PoliticsMost people understand First-Past-The-Post.Most people understand the basic principle of Proportional Representation.

As a hybrid system AMS seems to get the best out of both systems. If selected it would be relatively easy to explain to the electorate.

The only issue of complexity would be calculating who had won seats through the D’Hondt formula.

Take The Bad With The WorseYep It’s that time were we criticise the system now. These are some of the issues which arise with an AMS system.

1. Two-Tier2. Weaklings3. Under-Representation4. Uncertainty5. Accuracy?

Uncertain and InaccurateUncertainty

There is no certainty to this system. As my mini presentation shows a large number of seats quickly fill up for Liberal Democrats. As this stands it seems ok, but as the seats start to move amongst the smaller parties it creates instability.

AccuracyIf we start tinkering with constituencies is it fair to say they start to become a bit artificial and that the people chosen to represent them are less significant to the constituency?

2nd Class ConstituenciesThis is almost a tale of 2 cities. If you constituency is electing using the FPTP part of the system, then your representative will generally be known locally and will have connections to the community they represent.

However.... If your constituency is allocated a representative under the PR bit of the system then they will be chosen by a party list system and allocated to you. They will be unlikely to know the constituency and will simply be selected on the basis of how highly the party rates them.

So some constituencies have dedicated representatives (i.e. Labour in Scotland are very good at this), whereas others are given representatives under PR who may not be in the interests of that community (the overall growth in the SNP and Conservative vote is a concern).

WeaklingsWeak Representatives

This ties into the last point about party lists. Each party will have a list of potential candidates for the PR seats before the election. That list is ranked in order of who the party think is best. So MR/MRS no.1 spot its looking promising. MR/MRS no.325 slot might not have it so easy. As such if they get elected these people owe their career to the party NOT to you!

Weak GovernmentIf we look at the systems which use AMS (Scotland, Germany, Italy and Russia) one feature is that the PR element creates political uncertainty. With the exception of Russia all these countries either have a coalition Government or a minority rule Government which has to bargain for every issue or face loosing a vote of no confidence.

Underground Over ground Representation Free

If PR is all about a fair representation, then why does the AMS version mean we need a threshold to even qualify. If we apply this to our elections then for a party to qualify for the threshold we need to look at a few things.

Total number of votes = 29,691,380Threshold 5%

Voters for you needed = 1,484,569

The End…..

Now comes the test

General Elections in the UK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/default.stm

Look at the above link and all the associated links... Its ESSENTIAL reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_parliamentary_election,_2009#Results

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_general_election,_2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_legislative_election,_2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/21/electoral-reform-pr-labour-straw?commentpage=1&commentposted=1

Party List Systems

• There are many variations of party list voting, but the most basic form is the closed party list system. The system is quite simple; rather than voting in a single-member constituency for a specific candidate, electors vote for a party in a multi-member constituency, or sometimes a whole country.

Each party's list of candidates, ranked according to the party's preference, is published on the ballot paper. All the votes are counted and each party receives seats in the constituency in the same proportion as the votes it won in that constituency.

A quota is calculated for the constituency - the number of votes required to win one seat. Those who become the party's MPs, will be those placed highest in the party's list of candidates. Voters simply vote for the party, they have no say as to which candidates are elected.

The system is used:in most countries in continental Europe, South Africa, Israel and Russia, and is used in Britain for the 1999 European Election

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2009/election_09/

Advantages

• The strength of such systems are that they guarantee a high degree of party proportionality. If a party receives 32% of the vote, then it will get 32% of the seats in parliament. Every vote has the same value.

• The system is also very simple for voters, who have only to make one choice for a party out of a small selection

However• With closed party lists, voters have little or no effective choice over

candidates, they only get control over which party is in government, but with no control over the members of that government.

• Party lists do nothing to ensure fair representation for traditionally under-represented groups in society, and in fact could do the opposite, since party leaders are most likely to choose people from a similar background to represent the party.

• Parties can stifle independent and minority opinion within their ranks. Because of the very large constituencies, there is little chance for accountability to voters and no local connection between members and voters. The system keeps power out of the hands of voters and firmly in the hands of party leadership

Additional Member System (AMS)

• Several variants of Additional Member Systems have been proposed, but basically they are a combination of the First-Past-The-Post system and party list voting. The purpose is to retain the best features of First-Past-The-Post while introducing proportionality between parties through party list voting.

Each voter has two votes, one vote for a single MP via First-Past-The-Post, and one for a regional or national party list. Half the seats or more are allocated to the single-member constituencies and the rest to the party list. The percentage of votes obtained by the parties in the party list vote determines their overall number of representatives; the party lists are used to top up the First-Past-The-Post seats gained by the party to the required number. So if a party has won two seats in the constituencies but in proportion to its votes should have five, the first three candidates on its list are elected in addition.

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/participation-and-representation-in-scotland/4041.html

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/results-of-scottish-parliament-elections-2007/3827.html

Single Transferable Vote• http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6560000/newsid_6567600/6567683.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&ms3=6&ms_javascript=true&nol_stor

yid=6567683&bbcws=2• http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/local-council-elections-and-single-transferable-vote/6069.html

STV does more than other systems to guarantee that everyone gets their views represented in parliament and that they have a say in what is

done by their elected representatives. STV is the best option for:

1. Putting the power in the hands of the voters. 2. Keeping MPs linked to the people who voted for

them. Most voters can identify a representative that they personally helped to elect and can feel affinity with. Such a personal link also increases accountability.

3. Making parliament reflect the views of the voters.

4. Only a party or coalition of parties, who could attract more than 50% of the electorate could form a government. Any changes would have to be backed by a majority since public opinion is reflected fairly in elections under STV. This is far more important than that a government should be formed by only one political party.

5. It enables the voters to express opinions effectively. Voters can choose between candidates within parties, demonstrating support for different wings of the party. Voters can also express preferences between the abilities or other attributes, of individual candidates.

6. It is simple for voters to use. 7. There is no need for tactical voting . Voters can

cast a positive vote and know that their vote will not be wasted whatever their choice is.

8. It produces governments that are strong and stable because they are founded on the majority support of the electorate.

However1. The system does not produce such accuracy in proportional

representation of parties as the party list or additional member systems.

2. It breaks the link between an individual MP and his or her constituency.

3. Constituencies would be 3-5 times larger than they are now but with 3-5 MPs.

4. MPs may have to spend an excessive amount of time dealing with constituency problems and neglect the broader issues.

5. There are critics who say that this system could lead to permanent coalition governments, but this would only happen if the voters as a whole want it.

6. It is disliked by politicians, since it would remove power from them and give it to the electors, and many MPs with safe seats would lose the security they feel now.

Alternative Vote• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8093189.stm• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8281486.stm

1. The alternative vote retains the same constituencies and so the bond between members and their constituents is not lost.

2. Extreme parties would be unlikely to gain support by AV and coalition governments would be no more likely to arise than they are under First-Past-The-Post.

3. All MPs would have the support of a majority of their constituents.

4. It prevents MPs being elected on a minority of the vote. In 2005, only 34% of British MPs were elected by more then 50% of the votes in their constituencies. This is a decline from 2001, when half of MPs could claim 50% support of their constituents.

5. It removes the need for negative voting. Electors can vote for their first choice of candidate without the fear of wasting their vote.

However

1. Whilst it does ensure than the successful candidate is supported by a majority of his or her constituents, it does not give proportionality to parties or other bodies of opinion, in parliament. Research by Democratic Audit in 1997 showed that the results could actually be even more distorting than under First-Past-The-Post.

2. It also does very little to give a voice to those who have been traditionally under-represented in parliament.

3. There is no transfer of powers from party authority to the voters, and it does not produce a proportional parliament.

You need to research and present to the class features of the other electoral systems used in the UK — Group 1 additional member system (AMS); Group 2 single transferable vote (STV); Group 3 regional party list (open and closed)Group 4 supplementary vote.Group 5- Alternative Vote PlusYou need to explain: where they are used how they operateArguments for and against

Features of the other electoral systems

• http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/download_list.php?sid=4

• Homework: you need to download these pdf and read them through.

• AMS is a hybrid voting system. It is part First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) and part closed party list. The party list element is added on to make the result more proportional, overcoming (to a greater or lesser extent) the distortion inherent in FPTP. Supporters of AMS claim that it combines the best of both; its detractors say it combines the worst of both.

• The exact proportion of constituency representatives and list representatives varies from country to country; the constituency element usually makes up between 50 and 80 per cent.

• Under AMS, each voter typically gets two votes – one for a real person, and one for a party.

• When all the votes are in, each constituency returns a winner, in the traditional FPTP style. If a candidate was standing in a constituency as well as on a party list, their name is taken off the list, with everyone below them moving up a place.

• The additional members are then allocated with the aim of tallying the number of seats won by each party to their share of the vote. Some systems do this solely on the basis of the party vote, others include the constituency vote too.

• Finally, some variants of AMS include a 'threshold', such that a party must gain, say, 4 per cent of the vote if they are to have any seats.

Additional Member System

AMS ContinuedThe Scottish Parliament (73 FPTP, 56 top-up) The Welsh Assembly (40 FPTP, 20 top-up) The Greater London Assembly (14 FPTP, 11 top-up)

Arguments used in support of AMS• It is broadly proportional. • Each voter has a directly accountable single constituency representative. • Every voter has at least one effective vote. • It allows a voter to express personal support for a candidate, without having to worry about

going against their party.

Arguments used against AMS• Many representatives are accountable to the party leadership rather than the voters. • Having two different types of representative creates animosity between them. In Wales and

Scotland, for example, AMs and MSPs elected via the regional lists have been seen as having 'got in via the backdoor' or as 'assisted place' or 'second class' members. This is especially marked in Wales, where Labour has no list AMs.

• AMS sometimes gives rise to 'overhang' seats, where a party wins more seats via the constituency vote than it is entitled to, proportionally speaking. In Germany and New Zealand, but not in the UK, extra seats are allocated to the other parties to redress the balance. This can get complicated and lead to further bickering and animosity.

• AMS can lead to the problem of 'decoy lists'. • Some people get confused over exactly what they're supposed to do with their two votes.

The lsit system:There are many variations of party list voting, but the most basic form is the closed party list system. The system is quite simple; rather than voting in a single-member constituency for a specific candidate, electors vote for a party in a multi-member constituency, or sometimes a whole country.Each party's list of candidates, ranked according to the party's preference, is published on the ballot paper. All the votes are counted and each party receives seats in the constituency in the same proportion as the votes it won in that constituency.A quota is calculated for the constituency - the number of votes required to win one seat. Those who become the party's MPs, will be those placed highest in the party's list of candidates. Voters simply vote for the party, they have no say as to which candidates are elected.An open party list system is one that allows the voter to vote either for the list as published or to vote for an individual candidate, wherever that candidate appears on the party's list. The possible effect of this is to alter the order in which candidates have been placed on the list, and therefore the list of successful candidates, while still registering support for the voter's preferred party. Seats are allocated according to the number of quotas won. Arguments used in favour:The strength of such systems are that they guarantee a high degree of party proportionality. If a party receives 32% of the vote, then it will get 32% of the seats in parliament. Every vote has the same value.The system is also very simple for voters, who have only to make one choice for a party out of a small selection.

Weaknesses:With closed party lists, voters have little or no effective choice over candidates, they only get control over which party is in government, but with no control over the members of that government.Party lists do nothing to ensure fair representation for traditionally under-represented groups in society, and in fact could do the opposite, since party leaders are most likely to choose people from a similar background to represent the party.Parties can stifle independent and minority opinion within their ranks. Because of the very large constituencies, there is little chance for accountability to voters and no local connection between members and voters. The system keeps power out of the hands of voters and firmly in the hands of party leadership.

With the supplementary vote, there are two columns on the ballot paper – one for the first choice and one for the second choice.

Votes are marked by placing one 'X' in each column, although voters are not required to make a second choice if they do not wish to.

All the first-preference are added up, and if a candidate has a majority, they are elected. If no candidate receives a majority, the top two candidates are retained, and the rest eliminated. The second-preference votes of the eliminated candidates are then counted, and any for either of the top two candidates are added to their first-round totals. Whichever candidate has the most votes after these second-preferences have been allocated is declared the winner.

Supplementary vote

Supplementary vote Real-world application of SVAll directly elected English mayors, most notably the Mayor of London.

Arguments used in support of SV• To some extent, SV encourages conciliatory campaigning, as gaining second-preference

votes is important. • It is a relatively simple system to understand.

Arguments used against SV• SV does not eliminate the likelihood of tactical voting. • Unlike AV, SV does not ensure that the winning candidate has the support of at least 50%

of the electorate. • SV strongly promotes voting for only candidates from the main three parties.

The Alternative Vote Plus

• What is it?The Alternative Vote Plus (AV+) was invented by the 1998 Independent Commission on the Voting System, commonly known as the Jenkins Commission. The Commission was asked to recommend a voting system that fulfilled (or best fulfilled) four criteria:• The maintenance of a geographical link between MP and constituency • The need for stable government • The desire for broad proportionality • An extension of voter choice

The Commission described the system as a "limited" form of AMS aimed at achieving a balance between the requirements of "broad proportionality" and "stable government". AV+ was created with the intention of being the alternative to First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) in Labour's promised referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. The referendum never came but we will be having one in May 20111 on this system as part of the coalition agreement.

• AV+ has, as the name might suggest, two parts. The AV part, and the 'plus' part.• Under the AV part, about 500 MPs would be elected in single-member constituencies, but

rather than voters simply putting an 'X' by their preferred candidate, they would be asked to rank them in order of preference. Eg 1st 2nd 3rd.

• On top of these constituency MPs, each elector would get a second vote to cast at a county (or equivalent) level. In Scotland and Wales, these areas would be the same as the ones used for the additional members in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.

• Each voter would choose either their favourite party, or their favourite candidate from the list proposed by their favourite party. This means that they do not have to accept the order of candidates set out by the party, i.e. the lists are 'open' rather than 'closed'.

• The individual appointed as County MP will be the person from the winning party list who gets the most individual votes.

• The county votes will be used to decide how many additional seats each party should get within the county.

• The constituency seats are then taken into account and the county seat or seats are allocated to the party or parties most disadvantaged by the share of constituency seats (the party or parties with the highest ratio of votes to seats).

• About 100 (up to 150) MPs would be elected in the 'plus' part, and would help correct the imbalance between seats and votes often produced by FPTP. AV+ is thus a crude cross between AV and AMS.

The Alternative Vote Plus

Real-world application of AV+• AV+ has yet to be put into practice anywhere in the world.Arguments used in support of AV+• Elected MPs would have the support of a majority of their local electorates. • Being able to rank candidates increases voter choice, as does having both a

constituency vote and a regional vote. • Nearly every elector would have at least one vote that would have an effect on the

overall election result. • Parties would have an incentive to campaign across the whole country, and not just in

the marginal seats. • The final result will be fairer, with parties having a share of MPs based on their

support among the electorate, rather than on electoral arithmetic and geographical oddities.

• AV+ will produce majority governments when the voters express a desire for one, but will force them to work together when the electorate choose not to give any one party a clear majority.

• Tactical voting is no longer necessary. Arguments used against AV+• All existing constituency boundaries would have to be redrawn. • Ballot papers would be more complicated than FPTP ones. • It creates two classes of representative, which in turn creates animosity between

them and a confusion of roles.

STVSTV uses preferential voting in multi-member constituencies. • Each voter gets one vote, which can transfer from their first-

preference to their second-preference and so on, as necessary.• Candidates don't need a majority of votes to be elected, just a known

'quota', or share of the votes, determined by the size of the electorate and the number of positions to be filled.

• In an STV election, the quota is the number of votes a candidate needs to get elected. The quota is based on the total number of votes cast and the number of people needed to be elected to fill all the vacant positions.

• The quota is calculated in the following manner:In an election with three vacant positions, where there were 4,000 valid votes, the quota would be: 4000 (Votes) ÷ (3 (Vacancies) + 1) = 1000 (So in this case the quota would be 1000. )

Here's how candidates are elected for STV:

• The counting process tallies all first preference votes. A candidate is elected if they reach the quota.

• If a candidate is elected, they keep only the proportion of the vote they need to reach the quota. The surplus part of each vote is transferred to the voter's second preference.

• The votes are tallied again. • If another candidate reaches the quota or gets more votes than they need to be

elected, the surplus part of each vote for that candidate will be transferred to the voter's third preference.

• If no more candidates have enough support to get elected (i.e. reach the quota), the lowest polling candidate is eliminated and all votes for that candidate are transferred to those voters' next preferences.

• This process is repeated until enough candidates are elected to fill the vacant positions.

http://www.stv.govt.nz/stv/how.htm

Why STV?

• STV gives voters more choice than any other system. This in turn puts most power in the hands of the voters, rather than the party heads, who under other systems can more easily determine who is elected, meaning that under STV MPs' responsibilities lie more with the electorate than those above them in their party.

• Fewer votes are 'wasted' (i.e. cast for losing candidates or unnecessarily cast for the winner) with STV. This means that most voters can identify a representative that they personally helped to elect. Such a link in turn increases a representative's accountability.

• STV offers voters a choice of representatives to approach with their concerns post-election, rather than just the one, who may not be at all sympathetic to a voter's views, or may even be the cause of the concern.

• Competition is generally a good thing. Competition to provide a good service to constituents is no different.

• There are no safe seats under STV, meaning candidates cannot be complacent and parties must campaign everywhere, and not just in marginal seats.

• When voters have the ability to rank candidates, the most disliked candidate cannot win, as they are no good at picking up second-, third- and lower-preference votes.

• There is no need for tactical voting. • There is a more sophisticated link between a constituency and its representative. Not only is

there more incentive to campaign and work on a more personal and local level, but also, the constituencies are likely to be more sensible reflections of where community feeling lies.

Proportional Representation • PR is not an electoral system. PR is a description of a number

of different electoral systems and the effects they have.• PR is therefore a description for any electoral system that

converts votes into seats in a broadly proportional way.• If a system is exactly proportional parties will be represented

in accordance with the proportion of the total vote that they win. So if you win 40% of the vote you would get 40% of the seats.

• Kinds of PR systems include;• STV, List Systems, AMS, AV plus

Reasons for the wider use of proportional representation (PR)

• STV- used in N.Ireland because it fits the special needs of a community which suffered from a number of serious problems. The system chosen under the good Friday Agreement was chosen to achieve a number of objectives. It had to represent the different sections of a very divided society.

• It was used to prevent Unionist parties winning an overall majority which they would have done under FPTP. This was essential as one of the main problems of the history of N.Ireland was the so called abuse by Unionist, Protestant majority.

• Third, there was strong civil rights movement who insisted on having an electoral system which maximised voter choice