elections

ELECTIONS + FUNCTIONS

key feature in UK representative democracy and is used at various levels of government. They represent an aspect of the free and fair section of democracyFunctions:  they provide choice for the electorate:  elections are contested by parties who offer different programmes if they are placed in power / office. Elections serve to identify and secure that choice / option  legitimacy: elections are devices that allow governance to be fairly removed and to form. If a party wins an election it secures the right to govern. If a party loses an election it looses this right. Elections offer legitimacy. \ to educate and inform: Elections serve to 'showcase' the political spectrum in society: they allow for the display of mainstream politics and how elections are conducted services to engage and educate the general public. Citizens become informed of major issues concerning the state.  participation: to act as a way in which the general public can participate  representation: to allow different political parties and their views to be represented  mandate: for a region or the whole country --> right to govern and implement policies  accountability: to ensure the political parties are able to gain and lose power and be held accountable 

ELECTIONS + DEMOCRACY 

ENHANCES DEMOCRACY  democracy is about choice, which elections provide democracy is about equal input. One person=one vote=one value   impractical nature of direct democracy= elections best  elections free for all to vote and stand in  elections seen as fair for PM as the winner is the candidate / party with most votes freedom of expression  enhance democracy through education and informing  significant number of elections available to participate in 

DOESNT  choice is often limited to mainstream large parties who have more realistic chance of winning  not all citizens votes are equal as marginal seats have more value than safe seats elections are not the best mechanism for democracy, e- democracy and referendums would be better  the Westminster electoral system is flawed, disproportionate result and 1/3rd of constituencies have a majority mandate and in 80 years no government has ever got 50% of the national vote  governments and politicians lack legitimacy as only elected by 30% of population. 2015 GE Conservatives won a 12 seat majority with 36.9%.  only really significant election is general election that happens every 5 years  

Types of elections held in the UK

Westminster elections to elect members of parliament (MPs) using simple plurality FPTP  European Union elections to elect members of the european Union (MEPs) using closed party list  devolved Scottish Parliament to elect members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) using additional membership system AMS Northern Irish Assembly to elect Members of the legislative assembly using single transferable vote (STV)  Welsh Assembly to elect Assembly members (Ams) using additional membership system AMS London Mayoral elections to elect mayor using supplementary vote (SV) Greater London Authority to elect Assembly members using additional membership system AMS  Local government England and Wales to elect county councillors using simple plurality FPTP  Local government Scotland to elect county councillors using Single transferable vote STV 

First Past the Post 

USED: for the elections of MPs in the general election and for county councillors for local government in England and wales  simple plurality system: the winner is the candidate who gains the most votes. The winning margin need only be one vote, so quite often its less than 50% majority. e.g. Andrea Jenkins of the Outwood and Morely constituency won her conservative seat in the 2015 GE with only 38.9%. In 2010 32.23% of MPs had a majority mandate and this increased to 51% in the 2015 GE. So this means that under half the MPs are backed by under half of their constituents.  there are 650 seats as the UK is divided into 650 roughly equal sized constituents. The winning party that gets to form government is the party that gains over 326 of these seats. in May 2010, no party reached this --> formed rare coalition as conservatives only got 47.1% of the seats which led to a hung parliament  disproportional results: why? votes are counted in constituencies rather than as a whole country and winner only needs a simple plurality of votes. For example C's won 50.8% of seats in 2015 with only 36.9% of the vote. SNP got 50% of Scottish vote but 56/59 seats.

Strengths + Weaknesses of FPTP

Strengths  simple ballot paper makes it easy to understand, this encourages participation from all sides of society  it usually delivers a strong government with a clear mandate and with a single party and a stable government.  strong link between constituents and elected MP well established and provides continuity 

Weaknesses Most MPs don't have a majority mandate (only 51%in 2015 so less than half MPs backed by under half of constituents)  governments are normally elected without an absolute majority of the popular vote  disproportionate results: no real link between number of seats and number of votes. UKIp won 12.6% of the vote but only 1 seat; whilst SNP won't 4.7% and 56 seats.  discrimination against smaller / third parties who are realistically not going to form government  geographical support plays a huge part in vote disproportionality as the more concentrated support is more seats. SNP 56 seats in Scottish parliament wasted votes as votes for losing parties don't count for anything. in 1012 52.8% of the seats were wasted on losing candidates. This encourages tactical voting e.g UKIP vote conservative to keep labour out (vice versa with lab +green party) safe seats 

Supplementary Vote [SV] 

USED: London and other mayoral elections and Police and Crime Commissioners  majoritarian system voters are given two choices; first and second preference.  If a candiate wins more than 50% of first preferences they win the seat, if not every candidate bar the top two are eliminated and their second preferences are added to the firsts. The winner is the one with the majority. Boris Johnson in 2012 London Mayoral elections didn't win originally, but then got 51.1% of the vote.  doesn't always have to be a majority mandate 

Strengths and Weaknesses of SV 

Strengths:  keeps clear link and access point between MP and constituents  keeps existing constituency boundaries  MPs theoretically have to have more broader campaigns in order to appeal to more people. fairly comprehensive and easy enough to understand 

Weaknesses:  non-proportional system and doesn't ensure that the winner had 50% of support  not proportional  could still lead to tactical voting as people try to guess top two candidates 

Alternative Vote [AV] 

USED: Labour and Liberal Democrats leadership and in by elections to replace hereditary peers.  its a majoritarian system so the winning government must receive 50% of the vote to win  similar to FPTP in that you have a disproportionate result and has single member constituencies  Av voters must rank their candidates in order of preference. In FPTP the winner needs a simple plurality, in AV candidates need a majority of the vote.  The first preferences are counted up and if no one has a majority the last candidate is eliminated and their second preferences are distributed . This is repeated until a candidate has a majority. For example in the 2010 labour leadership elections, no one had an outright majority and so Dianne Abbott was eliminated and her votes redistributed, same for Andy Burnham, Ed Balls and eventually David Miliband leaving just Ed Miliband as the winner. 2015 Labour leadership elections Jeremy Corbyn won outright. 

Strengths + Weaknesses of AV

Strengths:  MPs need a majority rather than a simple plurality so MPs theoretically have to campaign more broadly and appeal to more voters  keeps existing constituency boundaries  might reduce number of safe seats reduces need for tactical voting  retains MP constituent link 

Weaknesses:  not a proportional system- the commission used public polls from 2015 GE to estimate result of 2015 GE had it used AV and results would have been more disproportional.  might lead to the election of the least unpopular rather than the most popular might lead to more coalitions as 3rd parties could win more seats  unequal votes, supporters of unpopular candidates, who are eliminated first will have their votes counted more times. 

Closed Party List 

USED: for electing British members of the European Parliament  proportional system: so system awards seats according to votes gained very simple ballot paper, voters pick a single party rather than a candidate and these votes are then counted up and seats are awarded via the D'Hont method  country is divided into regions and in each region parties create a  list of candidates in their order of preference (closed variation as parties choose)  Voters choose a party and then seats are awarded in direct proportion to number of votes cast. For example if a party wins 30% of votes in the region it is awarded the top 30% of candidates on its list for that region.  the winning candidates represent a region rather than a constituency  D'Hont method the system works by dividing the number of votes that each party has got, by the number of seats that they've already won plus one. Whichever party ends up with the highest number, gets the seat. The seat is then added into the formula and the process is repeated is repeated until all the seats are allocated. Prior to the election, the party leader ranks candidates in order of preference, the top candidates fill the seats won. Critics argue this puts power in leaders. 

Strengths + Weaknesses of Party List 

Strengths:  results is highly proportional ad the votes are equal and aren't wasted like they are under FPTP.  If used in 2015 election e.g. Conservatives got 36.9% of the vote and would end up with 37.7% of the seats. UKIP who got 12.9% would get 12.3%  ballot paper is very simple and easy to use  the party list of candidates could theoretically be structured to increase diversity 

Weaknesses:  break MP and constituency link  very limited choice as no say over MPs, just the party gives great power to the party leaders who determine the priority order so they might be bias or tough on independent minded MPs system is more likely to lead to coalitions as it makes it harder for a single party to win a majority 

Single Transferable Vote [STV] 

USED: Northern Ireland National Assembly, European and for England and Scotland local government elections.  proportional system: system that awards seats directly to votes gained lengthy ballot paper as the election uses large constituencies that elect more than one representative. Multi membership constituencies to vote the electorate is required to number their preferences, much like with AV, but because they are electing multi member constituencies, the ballot paper will feature  a number of candidates per party. Gives voters a great deal of choice as they can choose between candidates or prioritise the candidates from one party.  Candidates win seats under STV via the use of a quota. So instead of having to need a majority, candidates must meet a threshold/ quota. A quota is the number of votes only achievable by the same number of candidates as there are available seats . It is calculated by: the division of [valid votes/ number of seats available in that constituency +1] +1. Candidates that achieve the quota immediately are automatically elected. Thereafter any surplus votes (above the quota) of winning candidates are taken and the second preferences are added to other candidates; until six candidates achieve the quota. 

Strengths + Weaknesses of STV

Strengths more proportional than FPTP but not as much as party list  greater electoral choice  less wasted votes  gives 3rd parties more of a chance of success, eliminates safe seats so less need for tactical voting 

Weaknesses can lead to alphabet voting  complicated and takes longer for winners to be calculated and announced lengthy ballot papers could cause a decline in participation  ends and breaks single MP constituency link and increases likelihood of coalitions. 

Additional Membership System [AMS] 

USED: Scottish Parliament, Welsh assembly and Greater London assembly hybrid system: so combines elements of simple plurality [FPTP] or majoritarian systems with proportional systems. AMS combines FPTP and regional party list  about 2/3rd of the seats are elected by FPTP, the rest by the regional list system voters have two votes: one for FPTP [which elects the local candidate to represent that constituency] and the other for the regional list system. In the party list system, candidates are ranked by party member, and as seats are awarded the top candidates gain places. Seats are awarded for proportion of votes cast for each party in that region. However, in a hybrid system, the seats are not awarded according to votes cast, they are distorted in favour of those parties that have been most disadvantaged in the constituency, FPTP system. This is called differential top up system.  examples needed to be added 

Strengths + Weaknesses of AMS 

Strengths:  the system helps smaller parties who may have received a large number of votes but not enough to win in constituencies  by factoring in less proportional constituency results 3rd parties have a much better chance of winning some of these regional seats  without these regional seats many third parties would be severely under represented in parliament  overall results show that the constituency results aren't that proportional but that it is over compensated by for by the regional. 

Weaknesses:  creates tension between two classes of elected representatives. In Scotland there are both MSPs and party list MSPs who owe their position to the regional list result. The two have different work loads and this can create tension.  Former labour Minister Brian Wilson said he wouldn't be upset if the party list was "done away with" as regarded MSPs as a "breed" and "waste of space" as they're not elected by anyone nor do they have a significant role. 

Alternative Vote + 

not used  hybrid system of AV and regional party list.  recommended by the Jenkins commission  disadvantages: same as AMS as well as gives party leaders greater influence and is more complicated  advantages more proportional 

Voting Behaviour 

Influenced by:  gender ethnicity  age  region 

Gender and Ethnicity 

Gender  Conservative support amongst men and women since 1974: 1974-2001 = women. 2001-2010= men.  Labour party has tended to have more support from men, but from 2005 onwards its changed to women.  Several explanations can be given to describe this gender divide: 1. Until the last few decades women were less likely to be in paid employment than menà less likely to be members of trade unions that strongly support labour à however, today, far more women are employed, many in public sectors à could argue this is why labours support from women has increased. Also arguable that New Labour’s focus on education and public services won greater female support.  2015 GE comparison: hardly any difference between men + women. à labour had slightly more women, conservative had slightly more male. But overall gender alone is not the strongest indicator of how someone is likely to vote. 

Ethnicity (prechewed) Table on ethnicity shows that there was a correlation between ethnicity and support in the 1997 GE.  Conservatives got most of their support from white voters; whilst labour had more black as well as white voters. à could be because labour governments have  a history of supporting and advancing the rights of ethnic minorities e.g. Race Relations Acts of 1965,1968 and 1976.  Race Relations Amendment Act 2000, Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.  Whereas, in many recent elections it has been the conservative party that has been more vocal in opposing current immigration levels.  Detailed survey after 2005 General election estimated votes by Ipsos Mori survey. à ethnicity voters had decreased for labour à due to Iraq War which began in 2003 which particularly impacted labours support from ethnic minorities. However, in the 2010 GE ethnicity again appeared to be strongly aligned with the labour party.  And it was the same at the 2015 GE. With labour getting much more ethnic support than the conservatives. However, the conservatives did manage to increase their ethnic minority vote share between 2010-2015 possibly due to the collapse in support for the lib dems.

Age 

Age Labour won the 1997 GE in a landslide so its unsurprising to see that they did well in all age groups. In the 2005 GE generally the conservative party gets stronger support from older voters, while labour and the lib dems got far more support from younger generations.  2010: conservative party managed to get more support from voters across the age groups, but their best support was still amongst the older voters.  Labour party has slightly stronger support amongst younger voters, but with the liberal democrats the divide is very sharp, with support dropping as age groups increase.  Why is there a divide? younger people to be more egalitarian  (labour) when it comes to economic policies, favouring a more equal distribution of wealth; also more in favour of social equality and change on social issues like gay marriage.  In contrast older voters, tend to be more conservative, favouring a more sceptical view about creating an equal society, more protective of their individual private property, more conservative, more religious, less in favour of new positions on social issues. 2015 GE showed that labour and green parties had much stronger support from younger male voters,  while the conservatives and UKIP have more support from older male voters.  BUT the differences are even more pronounced under female age voters.  Large 20 point gap between labour and conservative support from 18-24 year old women and women aged over 55. 

Region

Where exactly you live in the UK. Table shows the 1997 GE by English region. à clear that as you move down the country labour support drops and conservative support grows, with the exception of London. à exactly the same in 2005 GE. In 2010 the regions  change slightly, with more conservative regions, especially in Midlands. However still clear divide with labour north and conservative south. 2015 labour again did best in the North and in London, whilst conservative support was strongest in the south. Lib dems support collapsed consistently across the entire country, whilst support for the Green and UKIP were consistent across the whole country. à reason for North south divide is linked strongly to class and the economic history of the UK.  Northern England used to be the heart of working class industries and workers e.g. mining. Large communities based around these industries created labour safe seats. Similarly, cities and towns containing large working class populations have also been labour safe seats. In contrast, in the South, the more rural and wealthy parts have been natural seats for the conservatives. In previous elections labour has tended to perform quite well in Wales and Scotland, however, recent elections show that nationalist parties like Plaid Cymru and SNP have been growing in support. 2015 GE à success of SNP where it gained 50% Scottish support. à 56/59 seats.  Labour and lib dem support collapsed and decreased. Membership of SNP has been growing rapidly since 2014 referendum on Scottish independence.  Comparing Scottish, welsh and English results we can see that support varies considerably.  However, we cannot make the same comparison with N. Irish results.  à N. Ireland has a completely different set of political parties with varying levels of age, ethnicity and gender.