Electoral Systems
Electoral Systems
Why Electoral Systems Matter
The choice of electoral system determines how votes are translated into seats. Different systems produce different outcomes in terms of proportionality, government stability, voter choice, and representation. The UK uses multiple electoral systems across its various elections.
First Past the Post (FPTP)
Used for: UK general elections (650 constituencies), English and Welsh local elections.
How it works:
- Single-member constituencies
- Voters choose one candidate with an X
- The candidate with the most votes wins (plurality, not majority)
- No minimum threshold required
Advantages:
- Simple for voters to understand
- Usually produces strong, single-party majority governments (e.g. Labour 2024: 412 seats)
- Creates a clear link between MP and constituency
- Allows voters to remove unpopular governments decisively
- Stable government: avoids the coalition haggling common in PR systems
Disadvantages:
- Disproportional: in 2024, Reform UK won 14.3% of votes but only 0.8% of seats; Lib Dems won 12.2% of votes but 11.1% of seats (geographic concentration helped)
- Wasted votes: millions of votes in safe seats make no difference to the outcome
- Produces "electoral deserts" where parties have no representation despite significant support
- Tactical voting: voters choose the "lesser evil" rather than their preferred candidate
- Two-party dominance: squeezes out smaller parties (Duverger's Law)
- Winner can lack majority support: in 2005, Labour won a 66-seat majority with just 35.2% of the vote
Additional Member System (AMS)
Used for: Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd, London Assembly.
How it works:
- Two votes: one for a constituency MSP (FPTP), one for a regional party list (proportional)
- Constituency members elected by plurality; list seats allocated to correct disproportionality using the d'Hondt formula
- Scottish Parliament: 73 constituency + 56 regional list = 129 MSPs
Advantages:
- More proportional than FPTP while retaining constituency representation
- Voters can split their ticket (vote for different parties on each ballot)
- Smaller parties gain representation through the list (e.g. Scottish Greens)
- Retains a constituency link
Disadvantages:
- Creates two classes of representative (constituency vs list MSPs)
- Party leadership controls the list rankings, giving voters less choice over individual candidates
- Can still produce majority governments (SNP 2011)
- More complex than FPTP
Single Transferable Vote (STV)
Used for: Northern Ireland Assembly, Scottish local elections, Republic of Ireland.
How it works:
- Multi-member constituencies (typically 3-6 seats)
- Voters rank candidates in order of preference (1, 2, 3...)
- Candidates must reach a quota (Droop quota: votes/(seats+1) + 1)
- Surplus votes and eliminated candidates' votes are redistributed according to preferences
Advantages:
- Highly proportional outcomes
- Voters choose between candidates of the same party (intra-party competition)
- Minimal wasted votes due to preference transfers
- Reduces need for tactical voting
- Produces broadly representative assemblies
Disadvantages:
- Complex counting process (can take days)
- Weakens the constituency link (multi-member constituencies are larger)
- Can produce coalition or minority governments (seen as instability by critics)
- May encourage intra-party rivalry rather than inter-party competition
Supplementary Vote (SV)
Used for: Was used for London mayoral elections (2000-2021); now replaced by FPTP from 2024.
How it works:
- Voters mark a first and second choice
- If no candidate wins 50%+ on first preferences, all but the top two are eliminated
- Second preferences for the remaining two candidates are redistributed
Advantages:
- Winner has broader support than under FPTP
- Simple for voters (only two choices)
- Ensures the winner is acceptable to a wider electorate
Disadvantages:
- Not truly proportional (still single-winner)
- Second preferences of voters whose first choice made the top two are never counted
- Replaced by FPTP in 2024 under the Elections Act 2022
Regional/Closed Party List
Used for: Was used for European Parliament elections in Great Britain (1999-2019).
How it works:
- Voters choose a party (not individual candidates)
- Seats allocated proportionally to parties within large multi-member regions
- Parties decide the order of candidates on their list
Advantages:
- Highly proportional results
- Simple for voters (one vote)
- Ensures minority representation
Disadvantages:
- No constituency link whatsoever
- Party bosses control who gets elected via list order
- Can allow extremist parties to win seats (BNP won 2 MEPs in 2009)
Referendums
A referendum is a vote on a single issue, a form of direct democracy.
| Year | Question | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 1975 | Remain in the EEC? | 67.2% Yes |
| 1997 | Scottish Parliament? | 74.3% Yes |
| 2011 | Change to AV? | 67.9% No |
| 2014 | Scottish independence? | 55.3% No |
| 2016 | Leave the EU? | 51.9% Leave |
Key debate: Should referendums be binding or advisory? The 2016 EU referendum was legally advisory but treated as politically binding.
Key Thinker: Arend Lijphart (1936-)
Distinguished between majoritarian democracies (like the UK under FPTP, which concentrates power) and consensus democracies (like the Netherlands, which disperses power through PR). Argued consensus democracies produce better policy outcomes and higher citizen satisfaction.
Evaluation: Should the UK Reform its Electoral System?
For reform:
- FPTP is grossly disproportional and wastes millions of votes
- PR would increase voter engagement and reduce safe-seat complacency
- Devolved bodies using AMS/STV have not produced instability
- Most European democracies use proportional systems successfully
Against reform:
- FPTP produces strong, accountable governments
- The 2011 AV referendum showed public rejection of change (though AV is not PR)
- PR can give disproportionate power to small parties in coalition negotiations
- The constituency link is valued by voters
Exam Tips
- Learn specific election data (vote share vs seat share) to illustrate disproportionality
- Be ready to compare systems used across the UK (FPTP at Westminster vs AMS in Scotland vs STV in Northern Ireland)
- Apply Duverger's Law when discussing FPTP's effect on the party system
- Consider the trade-off between proportionality and governmental stability