The Electoral System

A: The Purpose of Elections

Elections give people choice. They are the means by which authority is given to a particular political party to provide the government for a defined period of time, which is up to 5 years in the UK. Elections confer legitimacy on government. By giving the opportunity for removing one party and installing another, elections demonstrate clearly the principle of accountability. The knowledge that a government has to put itself before the electorate within 5 years is the most crucial constraint on its freedom of action whilst in office.

B: Types of Elections in Great Britain

When considering elections in Britain, most people think about general elections, which result in the election of a government. However, there are other elections held, and the number and variety has increased over recent years.

1. i) General Elections:

These involve electing candidates to be members of the House of Commons in Parliament.

1. ii) Local Elections:

These are held to elect members of local councils of differing types, such as district and county councils, eg Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and Kent County Council. In London and some other towns, voters can also elect a Mayor.

iii) European Elections:

These are held to elect British members to the European Parliament.

1. iv) Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Elections:

These are held to elect members to the devolved assemblies in these particular areas.

C: The Main Features of the British Electoral System

1. i) The Franchise:

The right to vote in British elections is given to the British subjects (and citizens of the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland who live in Britain) over the age of 18 at the time of election. Those excluded are convicts, lunatics, members of the House of Lords, and those people disqualified from voting for corrupt electoral practices (eg bribery). Each voter has the responsibility of ensuring that his name is on the electoral register. Voting is not compulsory as it is in some countries, eg Australia.

1. ii) Constituencies:

At general elections, voters are expressing a broad preference for the party they want to run the country for the next 5 years. At the same time, the voters are also electing an MP to represent their constituency. There are 646 single-member parliamentary constituencies covering the whole country. The boundaries of constituencies are re-drawn approximately every 10-15 years by the Boundary Commission to accommodate population changes.

iii) Candidates:

Any British subject, citizen of the Commonwealth of the Republic of Ireland over the age of 21 is entitled to stand as a parliamentary candidate, provided that he/she is not disqualified (for the same reasons that would disqualify him from voting). There are some categories of people not allowed to stand:

• Clergymen of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic churches
• Holders of judicial office
• Civil servants
• Some local government offices
• Members of the police
• Members of the armed forces

The vast majority of candidates represent political parties, which control the selection procedures for candidates. Unlike in the 1800s, the influence of a candidate on an election campaign appears to be very small (perhaps only 500 votes), ie most people vote for the party, not the individual party candidate. Occasionally, there are exceptions with candidates who build up a following, which can cut across party lines – this gives them a natural advantage over their opponents.

1. iv) Elections:
2. a) The Dissolution of Parliament

General elections must be held at least every 5 years, in accordance with the Parliament Act, 1911. Provided that the PM gives at least 3 weeks notice of his intention to call an election (by convention, they are always held on Thursdays), he may ask the Queen for a dissolution at any time within that 5 year period. This is a really important aspect of a PM’s power, as it enables him to choose a time which is best suited to his political party.

PMs are influenced in their timing by a number of factors:

• Knowledge of forthcoming damaging publicity, statistics, times (“feel-good factor”)
• Popularity – shown in opinion polls or By-Election results
• Avoidance of calling an election too soon after the previous election
• Avoidance of calling an election at the end of the 5 year period
• Avoid winter months
• Avoid summer months

Clearly, if a government loses its majority in the Commons, then the PM may not have the luxury of choosing when to have an election. If he/she loses the “vote of no confidence”, the PM has to resign immediately and a general election would follow shortly afterwards (eg James Callaghan, 1976-79)

1. b) The Result

At 10pm on the day of polling, ballot boxes are closed and they are taken to a public hall, where the counting begins immediately. The first declarations are usually around midnight. Although some results are not know until the following afternoon, it’s possible to make a fairly accurate prediction after the results from a number of key marginals have come in. When the result of the election is beyond doubt, the leader of the party with the most MPs is invited by the Queen to form a new government. Should the result lead to a change of government, the Queen delays this invitation until the defeated PM tenders his resignation. The new PM moves into No. 10 immediately and announces his government shortly afterwards.

D: Different Electoral Systems

An electoral system is more than an instrument for providing choice. The particular system a country uses influences both the choices the voters make and the kind of government the voters receive.

1. i) Majoritarian and Plurality Systems:

Majoritarian and plurality systems are based on the idea of one elected representative per constituency. These systems are not designed to be proportional, ie that the parties gain seats in proportion to the overall percentage of votes they received in the entire country. They are designed to produce a clear winner in each seat.

1. a) Plurality

In plurality systems, the winning candidate in a constituency simply has to win a plurality of votes, that is, the person has won more votes than any other single candidate. An example of a plurality system would be that used in Great Britain in general elections. It’s often called FPTP.

1. b) Majoritarian

In Majoritarian systems the candidate must win a majority of the votes cast in the constituency. Examples of this system include the Alternative Vote System used in Australia, the Double (or Second) Ballot which was used in France, and the Supplementary Vote used in Britain to elect the Mayor of London.

1. ii) Proportional Systems:

The main feature of proportional systems is that a number of candidates are elected to represent each constituency. They are designed to achieve far greater proportionality than plurality or Majoritarian systems, in that the final result reflects more accurately the percentage of votes each party received in the election. In a perfectly proportional system, the percentage of votes would equal the percentage of seats.

There are three types of proportional system:

• The List System
• The Single Transferrable Vote
• The Mixed or Hybrid System

E: Working Examples

1. i) First Past the Post:

The British voting system for general and local elections is the FPTP system, which is a version of the plurality system. Each voter has one vote and may use it to vote for one candidate in his constituency. The candidate with the most votes (the highest number) in each constituency is elected as its MP.

A party which attempts to form a government is not only expected to win the most seats in the Commons but also an absolute majority of them (this is normally the case under this system). This needs not, however, be matched in terms of overall votes – no British government since 1933 has had an overall majority of votes cast in a general election.

1. a) Advantages

Those people in favour of FPTP cite its various advantages over other systems as reasons for its continued use:

1. Simplicity –

The system can easily be understood by the vast majority of the population of the United Kingdom. FPTP also produces quick election results and is cheap to administer.

2. Political Equality –

One man, one vote (OMOV) is the most basic form of political equality, ie it cannot get any fairer than this system.

3. Single Member Constituencies –

The system creates single-member constituencies, ie one MP per constituency. The relationship between an MP and his constituents is closer, and therefore potentially more effective and beneficial, than is the case in large multi-member constituencies, which are a common feature of other voting systems.

4. Rough Justice –

Under FPTP a very unpopular government is very unlikely to win the next general election.

5. “Natural” Political Divide –

FPTP creates a two-party system, ie two very strong parties, one of which wins an election and the other becomes a strong opposition party (and vice versa). People argue that this reflects a “natural” political divide between radicalism and conservatism, and provides a choice of two parties with different alternatives to how the country should be run. (NB since the advent of Thatcher and Blair, the dividing line between the Conservatives and Labour has become more blurred.)

6. Strong Government –

The main advantage of FPTP is that it favours the two-party system, which produces single-party government with a strong main opposition party. This produces strong government, which is also stable, and is clearly accountable to the voters, unlike weak coalition governments, which, it is argued, are produced by other systems. Strong governments can govern without too much hindrance by Parliament, can pass laws quickly, can make decisions relatively easily/effectively, can pursue policies clearly and openly, and, in theory, can deliver election promises. Weak, coalition governments, on the other hand, have disadvantages:

• Lengthy negotiations (initially, simply to form the government, and then on policies as well)
• Laws tend to be compromises between the coalition partners, and tend to take longer to enact
• The coalitions themselves tend to be unstable and break down because of disagreements
• More frequent general elections
• Parties who come second can often end up forming the coalition government
• Parties with very little electoral support can get into government
• Extremist parties can get into government

1. b) Disadvantages

There have been increasing demands in recent years, from some quarters, for there to be an abandonment of the FPTP system. The Liberal Democrats have been the most vociferous in their demands for a change. Opponents of FPTP cite its disadvantages as reasons to discard it:

1. “Disenfranchisement” of Voters –

Since any vote for a losing candidate is “wasted”, that is, not directly represented in the Commons, all votes do not carry equal value. In other words, the system does not grant one man, one vote, one value. Therefore, political equality is denied. As a result, some voters may be discouraged from voting for minor parties or from voting at all.

2. Geographic Distortions –

The system works to the advantage of those parties that have their supporters concentrated geographically, eg the Conservatives in SE England and rural areas and Labour in the N and in urban areas, and disadvantages those parties that have their support more evenly distributed, eg the Liberal Democrats and UKIP.

3. MPs’ Lack of Majority Votes –

Many MPs have less than 50% of the votes cast in their constituency. Some argue that this means that these MPs lack legitimacy, because more people voted against them than for them.

4. Unfairness to Smaller Parties –

The two main parties are consistently over-represented in the Commons, whilst all the smaller parties are consistently under-represented, in the sense that there is no relationship between the percentage of overall votes cast and seats won. Furthermore, independent candidates have very little chance of being elected as an MP. This may exclude diversity and talent from the Commons.

5. “Minority” Governments –

No government since 1933 has achieved an absolute majority of votes cast, although virtually all of them have had an absolute majority of seats in the Commons. Thus, Britain has had powerful governments, which have implemented unpopular measures, even though the majority of the population did not vote for them. This has been described as an “elective dictatorship” (Lord Hailsham). People have described these governments as “minority” governments (because the majority of people did not vote for them) and have questioned their legitimacy when passing unpopular bills, because the electorate did not agree to the government.

1. ii) Majoritarian:

Majoritarian systems are those where the winning candidate in a constituency has to gain more than 50% of the votes cast.

1. a) The Alternative Vote System

This system is really a preferential system, which attempts to give voters a choice by enabling them to express a preference between candidates. Features of this system include:

• Candidates stand for single-member constituencies
• Voters complete a ballot paper by listing the candidates in order of preference
• A candidate who gains more than 50% of the first preferences is automatically elected
• If no candidate achieves more than 50%, then the candidate with the lowest number of first preferences is eliminated and his second preference votes are redistributed amongst the remaining candidates
• This process continues until one candidate gains more than 50% of combined preference votes

In safe seats dominated by one party, it is likely that the supporters of that party would not express any other preferences other than the candidate from that party. In marginal seats, it is more likely that voters would express their second and third preferences; in this way, even if they could not secure the victory of the party they strongly supported, they could try to block the one they most strongly opposed.

The advantage of this system is that the winning candidate has achieved over 50% of the votes cast. There are, however, a number of disadvantages:

• This system results in almost the same degree of disproportionality between votes cast and seats won as the FPTP system
• It is more complicated to understand than FPTP
• The candidate who gains the most first preference votes may not be the candidate who eventually wins the seat

1. b) The Second Ballot

This system is sometimes called the Double Ballot system. It operates on the same principle as the AVS in that the successful candidate must gain over 50% of the votes cast in  constituency. Features of this system include:

• Candidates stand for single-member constituencies
• Voters complete ballot papers in exactly the same way as FPTP (that is, voting for one candidate)
• A candidate who gains more that 50% of the votes cast is automatically elected
• If no one candidate achieves more than 50% of the votes, a second ballot is held, with the minority candidates dropping out, leaving only the top two candidates in the contest
• The candidate who achieves more than 50% of the votes is duly elected

Once again, the advantage of this system is that the winning candidate must have gained more than 50% of the votes cast. There are a number of disadvantages:

• The system results in almost the same degree of disproportionality between overall votes cast and seats won as the FPTP system
• The system is more costly to run than FPTP
• The final result is delayed
• Voter turnout is often lower in the second, and, arguably, more important, ballot

1. c) Supplementary Vote

This system is a cross between the Alternative Vote and the Second Ballot. If this system were to be used in British general elections, the 646 single-member constituencies would be retained.

Features of this system include:

• Voters would express a first and second preference
• Any candidate with more than 50% of first preference votes would be elected
• If no candidate gains over 50% of first preferences, all but the top two candidates are eliminated, their votes are redistributed and the remaining candidate with the most first and second preference votes would be elected

Supporters of this system claim that it has a number of advantages:

• It is likely to lead to majority governments
• It retains single-member constituencies
• It avoids the counting of “weak” preferences, as only a first and second choice is recorded on the ballot paper

However, the system is not in any way proportional, it is more complicated to understand than FPTP, election results are not known as quickly as they are in FPTP, a winning candidate may not be the one who won the most first preferences and, like FPTP, it tends to favour parties that have concentrated areas of support.

iii) Proportional (PR):

This title covers a wide variety of systems where votes are, more or less, proportional to seats won in Parliament, i.e. 56% of votes cast = 56% of seats in Parliament. There are two main types of proportional system: the List System and the Single Transferrable Vote. The Mixed/Hybrid/Additional Member system has a degree of PR.

1. a) The List System

The most basic form of PR is the National List System. Features of this system include:

• The entire country is treated as though it were a single constituency, and each party draws up a list of candidates equal to the number of seats being contested
• Each voter simply votes for the party of his/her choice on the ballot paper
• Each party wins the percentage of seats corresponding to the percentage of votes received across the country
• The required number of candidates is taken from the party lists to fill up the seats (the top names become MPs)
• Thus, candidates near the top of the party’s list are certain to be elected, whilst those near the bottom are just as certain not to be elected

Those in favour of the List System claim that it has a number of advantages:

• All governments have the support of more than half of the voters and therefore all governments are majority
• The system results in a more accurate match between votes cast and seats won than FPTP or majoritarian systems
• Removes the problem of ‘disenfranchisement’ of voters, as all votes count towards the result
• Removes the problem of geographic distortions
• As no MP is directly elected, it removes the problem of some MPs not gaining over 50% of votes in their constituency
• Removes unfairness to smaller parties that exists under FPTP

There are, however, a number of disadvantages to the List System:

• Removes the link between constituents and their MPs (there is nobody to represent individuals in Parliament)
• Increases massively the power of the leadership of political parties at the expense of local party associations; a small group of party members (leadership) dictate not only who goes on the list but also where they appear on the list (for this reason, this system has often been described as the least democratic of so-called democratic voting systems)
• There is no chance of independent candidates being elected under this system
• The system always produces coalition governments, with often the greatest number of parties represented and, therefore, the greatest number of disadvantages associated with such governments

In some countries, such as Finland, a refinement of the National List System is the Regional List System:

• The country is divided into a number of multi-member constituencies
• Parties put forward a list of candidates in each constituency equal to the number of seats to be filled
• Voters vote for a named candidate
• The votes are counted and the parties are allocated seats in proportion to the amount of votes they receive

The Regional List System retains the advantage of the National List System and also has the advantage of giving the voter slightly more choice and having MPs represent a set area. However, it retains many of the flaws of the National List System, including the fact that it always produces coalition governments.

1. b) Single Transferrable Vote (STV)

This system is based on large multi-member constituencies. Each party nominates candidates (as many as there are seats in the constituency) and voters number the candidates on the ballot paper in order of preference.

The system rests on the idea of a quota, which is the lowest number of votes which a candidate has to gain in order to win one of the seats in the constituency (until all seats are taken).

The candidate obtaining the most first preference votes wins one of the seats and is elected if he/she has reached the required quota. Any surplus votes (that is, above the quota) this candidate received are redistributed amongst the remaining candidates according to the second preference votes of the winning candidate. The ballot papers are then recounted and the new winning candidate gains the next seat (providing the quota has been reached). This candidate’s surplus votes are then redistributed in the same way as before and this process continues until all the seats in the constituency have been filled. If at any stage the candidate with the most votes does not reach the quota, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and all his/her votes are redistributed to the remaining candidates according to the loser’s ballot’s second preference votes.

The quota is expressed by the following formula:

The system has a number of advantages:

• It allows the voter to choose between a variety of candidates offered by the same party
• The importance of the individual candidates is increased and the power of the local party organisation is diminished (compared to the List System)
• It allows a voter to vote for candidates from different parties but who might have the same views on a particular issue which may be of overriding importance to the voter eg. Europe or freedom of the individual
• There is more chance of independent candidates standing and being elected than in other systems such as FPTP and, notably, the List System
• The system results in a more accurate match between the votes cast for a party and the seats gained than other systems such as FPTP, the Second Ballot and the Alternative Vote System

However, the system also has a number of disadvantages:

• It is very complicated and many voters do not understand how to use the system to their advantage
• It is more costly to administer than FPTP
• It is time-consuming – the results of the election are not immediately known
• It does not produce single-member constituencies and so the link between MPs and their constituents is not as strong as it is with FPTP, the Alternative Vote System, the Second Ballot and Mixed/Hybrid Systems
• Its biggest flaw, however, is that, like the List System, STV always results in the election of candidates from a large number of parties and no one party gaining an overall majority of seats, which necessitates the need for coalition governments and all the problems associated with them

STV is used for elections to Australia’s Upper House, India and some elections in Northern Ireland. The Liberal Democrats are in favour of adopting this system for general elections in Britain.

1. c) Mixed/Hybrid Systems

Mixed Systems combine FPTP and the List System. These systems are known by various names but most usually as the Additional Member System (AMS).

The best-known example is used in Germany. Under this system the voter has two votes. The ballot paper has two parts, one for each type of vote. On the first vote, an elector votes for a candidate of his/her choice to represent his constituency (as in FPTP). His/her second vote is for the party of his/her choice. The constituency candidate is elected on a simple plurality system (FPTP) and the party vote leads to the election of the remaining MPs to the legislature on a non-constituency basis. These candidates, known as additional members or ‘top-up’ members, are chosen through the party list system in proportion to the votes cast for each party.

There are two advantages with this system:

• It maintains the one-to-one relationship between constituency MPs and their voters
• It provides a degree of proportionality through the ‘top-up’ MPs and allows for the opportunity for minority parties to be better represented in the legislature than is the case with FPTP

However, there are also a number of disadvantages with this system:

• It often results in coalition governments having to be formed
• It is confusing for some voters to understand
• ‘top-up’ MPs are not directly elected by the voters and thus, like the List System, the power of the party machine is increased at the expense of local activists
• It creates two ‘classes’ of MP – those directly elected by the voters could claim to have more legitimacy and will almost certainly have a greater workload than the ‘top-up’ MPs

1. iv) Comparative Examples:

Countries employing the various systems include:

Alternative Vote: Australia’s Lower House

Double/Second Ballot: The Ukraine

National List System: Israel, Turkey

Regional List System: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland

Single Transferrable Vote: Australia’s Upper House, Malta, India

Additional Member System: Germany

It can be seen that some countries (for example, Australia) use different systems for each house of their legislature. Furthermore, some countries use different systems for different types of elections within their boundaries. This is now the case in Great Britain:

First Past The Post: general elections, local (county and district) elections in England, Wales and Scotland

Regional List System: European Parliament elections in England, Wales and Scotland

Single Transferrable Vote: Northern Ireland Assembly elections, European Parliament elections in Northern Ireland, local elections in Northern Ireland

Additional Member System: Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Greater London Assembly elections

Supplementary Vote System: Mayor of London elections, elections for mayors in other parts of the country, where they exist