Zusammenfassung der Ressource
(3) Which electoral system is best?
- What factors have influenced arguments
for and against electoral reform?
- The factors that
influenced the for
argument
- Lib Dem's revived support for electoral reform - although more
people voted for them, they were unable to make an electoral
breakthrough because of the biases implicit in the FPTP
- Alliance in 1983 one quarter of the
votes but won only 23 seats?
- More and more of the Labour Party
were converted to the cause of PR.
This occurred for two reasons:
- Lost 4 GE between 1979 to 1992, some
Labour members had started to doubt if the
party could win any more under FPTP
- Labour anticipated returning to power probably as a member of
a coalition government with Lib Dem's, and that would only be
possible if they reached an agreement on electoral reform
- Growing sympathy toward selectoral
reformwas evident in two ways
- Labour agreed that the devolved
assemblies would use PR
- Labour would set up an Independent Commission on
the Westminster voting system. Aim was to find an
alternative to FPTP and then put it to a referendum
- The commision proposed
"AV plus" however the
referendum was never held
- The factors that
influenced the
against argument
- Labour Party support for PR declined significantly
once the 1997 election proved that Labour could still
win, and indeed win handsomely, under FPTP rules
- Parties positions on electoral reform
have always been closely linked to
calculations about political advantage
- The Conservatives Party, has consistently
opposed plans to reform an FPTP
- The Labour party supported reform until 1945, when
the party formed it's first majority government - the
interest only surfaced when in prolonged opposition
- The fear with electoral reform is the possibility of a "hung
Parliament" - in which a three party holed the power
- What changes to the electoral system
have been recently proposed?
- The key aspect of the deal between the Conservatives and
the Lib Dem's was an agreement to hold a referendum on
the introduction of AV for Westminster elections
- This was a compromise between the Lib
Dem's preference for the STV system, and
Conservative support for the retention of FPTP
- What are the arguments
for/against the introduction of AV?
- For
- Involve the simplest change,
requiring no alteration to the
established constituency structure
- Maintain a firm link between an
MP and his or her constituency
- Possibility of strong and stable
government, achieved through the
existence of a single majority party
- Whilst at the same time increasing voter choice and ensuring
that MPs enjoy at least 50% support in constituency
- Against
- It creates little prospect of greater
proportionality, and may even result
in less proportional outcomes
- The Conservatives could accept AV on
the grounds that the Westminster election
system would remain clearly majoritarian
- Reform Westminster elections
- For
- Electoral fairness
- Fairness dictates that a party's
strength in parliament should reflect it's
level of support in the country.
- Proportionality underpins the basic
democratic principles of political equality
- In PR, all peoples' votes have the same
value, regardless of party they support
- All votes count
- In PR, no votes, or fewer votes, are "wasted", in the sense that
they are cast for candidates or parties who lose the election, or
are surplus to the needs of winning candidates or parties.
- This should strength turnout
and promote civil engagement
- Majority government
- Governments elected under PR will enjoy the
support of at least 50% of those who vote.
- These will be genuinely popular,
broad-based governments.
- By contrast, FPTP results in plurality rule.
- Parliamentary majorities can be gained with as
little as 35% of the vote, as occurred in 2005
- Accountable
government
- PR has implications for the relationship
between the executive had parliament
- FPTP leads to executive domination because
a single party has control of the Commons
- Under PR, governments have to listen to
Parliament as they will generally need
the support of two or more parties
- Consensus
political culture
- PR electoral systems distribute
political power more widely
- As a wider range of parties are involved in the
formulation of policy, decision-making becomes a
process of consultation, negotiation and compromise.
- "Partnership politics" therefore
replaces "yaa-boo politics"
- Against
- Clear electoral choice
- FPTP aids democracy
because it clarifies the
choices available to voters
- It offers voters a clear and simple
choice between potential parties of
government, each committed to a
different policy or ideological agenda
- This makes elections and
politics more meaningful to
ordinary citizens
- Constituency
representation
- FPTP establishes a strong and reliable link between
a representative and his or her constituency
- When a single MP serves a single constituency, people know who
represents their interests and who should take up their grievances
- Mandate
democracy
- In FPTP, voters get
what they vote for
- Winning parties have the ability to
carry out their manifesto promises.
- The doctrine of the mandate can
therefore only operate in systems that
produce single-party governments
- Under PR, policies are decided through
post-election deals not endorsed by the electorate
- Strong
government
- FPTP helps to ensure that
governments can govern
- This happens because the government of the
day enjoys majority control of the Commons
- Coalition governments, by contrast, are weak and ineffective because
they have to seek legislative support form two or more parties
- Stable government
- Single-party governments are stable and cohesive, and so
are generally able to survive for a full term in office
- This is because the government is united
by common ideological loyalties and is
subject to the same party disciplines
- Coalition governments, by contrast,
are often weak and unstable