Key Issues Regarding Electoral Systems (AQA A-Level Politics): Revision Notes
Key Issues Regarding Electoral Systems
Understanding electoral systems involves evaluating them against several key criteria. Different systems have varying strengths and weaknesses, and the debate over which system is best often involves trade-offs between competing priorities.
Criteria for evaluating electoral systems
When analysing and comparing different electoral systems, political scientists and voters consider several important factors:
The following criteria represent the main considerations when evaluating how well an electoral system serves democratic principles and practical governance needs. Each criterion addresses a different aspect of representation and government effectiveness.
Proportionality and a fair result: The proportion of seats won should match the overall percentage of votes received. For example, if a party gains 15% of the national vote, it should ideally receive approximately 15% of seats in Parliament. This ensures that electoral outcomes accurately reflect voter preferences.
Vote value: Every vote should carry equal weight in determining the final outcome. No vote should be 'wasted' or rendered meaningless. Voters should feel that their ballot matters regardless of where they live or which party they support.
Promoting participation and turnout: Electoral systems should encourage high levels of voter engagement. This is most likely to occur when voters believe their vote could genuinely affect the result. Systems that make votes feel meaningless tend to depress turnout.
Strong and accountable government: Voters should have confidence that governments can deliver on their promises. The system should also allow voters to directly reward or punish a prime minister and their party based on their performance in office. This creates clear lines of accountability.
Local links: MPs should represent specific geographical areas, enabling constituents to bring concerns and grievances directly to 'their' elected representative. This creates a personal connection between voters and their MP.
Power of the party: Some voters prefer systems that allow them to choose between different candidates from the same party. This prevents excessive power being concentrated in the hands of central party leadership and bureaucracy.
Party choice and representation: The electoral system should enable a broad range of political parties to contest elections. This ensures diverse viewpoints can be represented in the political process.
Comprehensibility and transparency: The system should be straightforward for the public to understand and produce clear, unambiguous results. There should not be secretive post-election deals between parties that undermine the expressed will of voters.
Key definitions
Manifesto: The set of policies a political party promises to implement if elected to office.
Participation: The various ways in which people can get involved in the political process, ranging in scale from standing for elected office to signing an e-petition. The most central form of participation is voting in elections.
Proportional electoral system: Electoral system that calculates the number of MPs or elected representatives by the actual number of votes each party receives, e.g. List PR (PR meaning proportional representation).
Majoritarian electoral system: Electoral system in which the candidate with the highest number of votes in each constituency is elected, e.g. FPTP. Those that come second or lower gain no seats, hence it is also sometimes termed a 'winner takes all' system.
The trade-off between different criteria
No electoral system performs perfectly across all criteria. Every system has strengths in some areas but weaknesses in others. Understanding these trade-offs is essential when evaluating electoral systems.
For example, first-past-the-post (FPTP) typically generates strong majority governments, which scores well on the 'strong and accountable government' criterion. However, this comes at the expense of proportionality. No single political party has won more than 50% of the vote in a UK general election since 1945. The closest result was in 1955, when the Conservatives won 49.7% of the overall vote.
This means that under FPTP, governments regularly hold substantial parliamentary majorities despite winning less than half of the votes cast. This creates a fundamental tension between delivering strong government and ensuring fair representation.
Worked Example: Understanding the Proportionality Problem
Consider a hypothetical election result:
- Party A wins 45% of the votes → receives 55% of seats
- Party B wins 35% of the votes → receives 40% of seats
- Party C wins 20% of the votes → receives 5% of seats
Under FPTP, Party A forms a majority government despite less than half of voters supporting them. Meanwhile, Party C's voters are significantly under-represented, receiving only 5% of seats for 20% of the vote. This demonstrates the trade-off between strong government and proportional representation.
Every electoral system involves compromise. The key question is which criteria should be prioritised.
The debate over electoral reform
There has been significant debate about whether the UK should replace FPTP for Westminster elections. In 2015, the cross-party pressure group Make Votes Matter was formed to campaign for a proportional rather than majoritarian electoral system for UK general elections.
By 2019, supporters of Make Votes Matter included:
- The Liberal Democrats
- The Green Party
- The SNP
- The Brexit Party
- Plaid Cymru
- The Electoral Reform Society
A small number of individuals from the Labour and Conservative parties also supported the campaign.
The composition of this coalition is notable - it brings together parties from across the political spectrum, from left-wing (Greens) to right-wing (Brexit Party), united by their shared disadvantage under the current system rather than by ideological agreement.
The role of self-interest in the reform debate
The composition of parties supporting electoral reform reveals that this is not purely a debate about democratic principles. Political self-interest plays a significant role.
Each party supporting reform is handicapped by FPTP in some way. The Green Party, Liberal Democrats, and Brexit Party have historically struggled to convert votes into seats under FPTP. While the SNP and Plaid Cymru are not disadvantaged by the current system in their respective regions, they operate in a Westminster Parliament normally controlled by one of the two main parties, which limits their influence.
Proportional systems almost inevitably produce permanent coalition or multi-party governments. This explains why relatively few Labour or Conservative MPs support proportional representation - adopting PR would likely deny them the opportunity to form majority governments in the future. This pattern is evident in other countries using proportional systems and in the UK's devolved assemblies.
Impact on voting behaviour
Electoral systems can significantly affect how people vote. Under FPTP, many voters are reluctant to support candidates they believe have no realistic chance of winning. This leads to tactical voting, where people vote for the 'least worst' electable candidate rather than their genuine first preference. Others may decide not to vote at all.
Example: European Parliament Elections and Voting Behaviour
Evidence from European Parliament elections (which used a proportional system from 1999 until 2020) demonstrates this effect. Eurosceptic parties such as UKIP and the Brexit Party performed much better in these elections than in general elections.
Why this occurred:
- They stood a greater chance of getting candidates elected under a proportional system
- Their supporters were more willing to vote for them when their vote would count
- European elections naturally focus more on European issues
- Some voters used these elections for 'protest voting'
This shows how electoral systems can either encourage or suppress support for smaller parties.
Key debates on electoral reform
The debate over reforming the electoral system centres on five main questions:
-
What aspects of electoral systems are most important? Different voters and parties prioritise different criteria when evaluating systems.
-
Will electoral reform help or hinder a particular party's performance at the polls? Self-interest influences parties' positions on reform.
-
How could electoral reform affect voting behaviour? Different systems may encourage or discourage tactical voting and affect turnout.
-
How much public enthusiasm is there for electoral reform? The level of public support for change varies over time.
-
If reform is to happen, what system should replace FPTP? There are multiple alternative systems, each with different characteristics.
Exam guidance
Essential Exam Strategies:
When answering questions about electoral systems:
- Always consider multiple criteria when evaluating systems
- Recognise that political self-interest influences the reform debate
- Use specific examples to illustrate how different systems affect outcomes
- Understand the trade-offs between different criteria
- Consider both principles and practical consequences
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
No electoral system is perfect - all involve trade-offs between competing criteria such as proportionality, strong government, and local representation.
-
FPTP tends to produce strong governments but poor proportionality - no party has won over 50% of the vote since 1945, yet majority governments are common.
-
The electoral reform debate involves self-interest as well as principle - parties disadvantaged by FPTP (Liberal Democrats, Greens, Brexit Party) support reform, while Labour and Conservatives generally oppose it.
-
Electoral systems affect voting behaviour - FPTP encourages tactical voting and can depress turnout, while proportional systems may increase support for smaller parties.
-
The five key questions in the reform debate concern: which criteria matter most, party self-interest, effects on voting behaviour, public support, and which alternative system to adopt.