Evaluate the view that the most significant benefit of FPTP is the legitimacy it gives to a
party's manifesto (30)
pages 86-91 Advantages/Disadvantages of FPTP - compare factors.
Legitimacy it gives to a party’s manifesto. However, this implies that a party’s
manifesto, if elected by FPTP, is endorsed
If a person is voted in with FPTP, their by the majority of people in the UK.
manifesto is similarly agreed upon by the
electorate. This cannot be seen for However, to win in a constituency, only a
proportional systems, as AMS has led to a plurality is needed, meaning more people in
current coalition government in Scotland totally can vote against the winning
with the SNP and Green party, forcing the candidate than for them, undermining
SNP’s manifest to be more environmentally legitimacy and wasting the votes of those
conscious then it would have wanted. who vote for a losing candidate.
FPTP also creates clear policy ideas – get In 2019, 229 of the 650 seats were won with
Brexit done’, ‘levelling up’. less than 50% of the vote.
FPTP produces a clear winner with clear
policy agenda that won’t be compromised in
parliament.
A more significant benefit is constituency This constituency link is not exclusive to
link – not just about party manifesto. FPTP.
FPTP gives a clear link between each area In AMS, each constituency is a relatively
and a representative, providing effective small geographic area. Each MP is attached
local representation and clear accountability to a constituency and is responsible for
to constituents. listening to their constituents. This gives
voters a direct link to national politics and
When Johnson was faced with criticism encourages their engagement.
over parties held in No.10 during Covid-19
lockdowns, MP Andrew Bridgen said ‘I’ve
had lots of emails from people demanding
that Boris goes’.
A more significant benefit is simplicity. However, FPTP leads to unequal vote value.
FPTP is a simple system, rather than a With uneven constituency sizes and with
mathematic formula, and produces a quick safe and marginal seats, the vote of one
result. Voters know how the system works person can be far more valuable than that of
and how their vote will be counted, which another, depending on where they live,
should increase turnout and reduce spoiled undermining key principles of democracy.
ballots.
Dan Carden gained nearly 85% of the vote
Due to FPTP simplicity, it allows for a cost- in his constituency of Liverpool Walton in
, effective election that delivers a quick and 2019.
legitimate result. A bigger turnout underpins
the legitimacy of the election result. Even if
a voter casts their ballot for a losing
candidate, by taking part they are
consenting to the use of FPTP to elect a
legitimate government.
Simplicity is the most important then a party’s manifesto. A party’s manifesto is not
always followed through. Pledges are not always followed through – bill of rights. Settled
in the AV referendum.
Evaluate the view that electoral reform in the UK since 1997 has been ineffective (30)
Use of AMS PAGES 90-95; USE OF STV PAGES 98-99; Attempted Reform of FPTP (AV
Referendum) and use of SV for Mayoral Election p99-100
Electoral reform in the UK has been Electoral reform in the UK has not been
effective - AMS. effective – AMS.
AMS is used by Scotland. AMS is used by Scotland.
AMS leads to more a proportional result. Is only proportional to an extent:
The second stage of AMS tries to correct the The relatively small size of the electoral
flaws of FPTP. The more seats a party gains regions means that parties need to win
in the constituency vote, the more difficult it around 6% of the list vote in a single region
is for it to gain regional seats as its votes to win any seats. Some smaller parties
will be divided by a higher number. This therefore remain unrepresented.
reduces the wasted votes and ensures more
parties have a chance of being represented. The number of top-up seats is also not
always sufficient to compensate from the
AMS also leads to governments with broad disproportionate number of constituencies
popularity being created. seats some parties may have won. In 2011,
for instance, the SNP won a majority of
In order to form a single-party government, seats despite winning only 45% of the
a party must have broad popularity across a constituency vote and only 44% of the
whole country, not just in concentrated regional list vote. (D’hondt system can only
pockets. If coalitions are formed, a greater address so much – not the FPTP
number of parties can have an input into constituency part).
policy. This supports greater legitimacy of
the government. AMS leads to a more complicated process.
Although the process of voting is simple,
what happens next is not. This can put
voters off, as they may feel that their vote
will be mathematically manipulated. This
may reduce turnout.
, AMS makes it unlikely single-party
government.
The more proportional nature of AMS
means single-party governments are harder
to achieve and coalitions are more likely.
This means governments may be weaker
and find it more difficult to pass policies on
which they campaigned.
Electoral reform in the UK has been Electoral reform in the UK has not been
effective – STV. effective – STV.
STV is used in Northern Ireland. STV is used in Northern Ireland.
STV would lead to a proportional result: STV is more complicated:
STV is the most proportional system used Although the process of voting is simple,
within the UK, delivering a result that has a what happens next is not, which could
close correlation between the percentage of reduce turnout.
the vote cast and the percentage of seats
gained, increasing the legitimacy of the STV would make single-party governments
result. unlikely:
Sinn Fein received 29% of the vote and In Northern Ireland, the Good Friday
gained 30% of the seats of the Northern Agreement means there has to be a coalition
Irish Assembly (27). DUP gained 21% of in government. However, even if there was
the vote and 28% of the seats of the not the case, the proportional nature of STV
Northern Irish Assembly (25). means a coalition is a likely result, which
could be weaker than a single-party
government.
STV would give voters more choice:
STV would result in weaker constituency
Voters have a great degree of choice, not links:
only between parties but also within parties.
They may support one particular party but if With no local elected representatives as in
it puts forward a candidate the voters do not FPTP or AMS and large multi-member
like, they have the choice to vote for constituencies, the link between elected
someone else from that party. representatives and their local area is
weaker.
STV would lead to greater representation:
Like AMS, the multi-member constituencies
mean a voter is likely to have someone
elected who shares their ideology or beliefs.
Electoral reform in the UK has been Electoral reform in the UK has been
effective – SV. ineffective – FPTP reform + SV.
, SV is used for mayoral elections. FPTP reform:
SV results in majority results: AV referendum – 67.9% No.
SV ensures that the wining candidate has a SV would undermine UK elections.
clear majority of the votes, increasing their
legitimacy. This should lead to a strong and SV would lead to two-party dominance:
stable single-party government.
The elimination of all but two candidates in
While Sadiq Khan did not get a majority in one go means that third parties are unlikely
the first preference vote (40%), he did to do well, and the result is not proportional.
receive a massive majority in the second
preference vote (70%). SV would lead to a false majority:
SV gives the voter more choice: A candidate needs only to gain a majority of
the ‘valid vote’, meaning the votes that
Voters have more choice than in FPTP, count/ In the second round, the vote of
knowing that they can vote for a smaller anyone with no second preference or whose
party with their first preference if they wish, second preference has been eliminated is not
but still using their second preference to try counted, meaning the winning candidate
to ensure that their vote is not wasted. might not have a true majority.
SV is a simpler system: SV would lead to wasted votes:
Unlike the proportional systems, SV is As with FPTP, there are a large number of
relatively easy to understand both in how wasted votes that have little or no impact on
votes are cast and how they are counted the outcome of the election.
afterwards.
SV would lead to tactical voting:
SV would stop extremist parties:
Using SV might encourage a tactical use of
Requiring the winner to gain a simple the second preference, rather than providing
majority means it is unlikely that small or better choice for voters, or might discourage
extremist parties will be successful. some from turning out to vote at all.
Evaluate the view that referendums are a worse form of democracy than elections (30)
Pages 105-108 Problems of Referendums/Advantages of Referendums all time comparing to
effectiveness of elections in UK particularly how good/bad FPTP is for democracy.
Referendums are worse than elections - Referendums are better than elections -
turnout: turnout:
Turnout for some referendums, such as the Referendums encourage participation and
AV referendum, has been low. education. This is seen in the 2014 Scottish
Independence and the 2016 EU referendum,
