Government & Politics Revision Notes

Unit 1- People and Politics.

PRIMARY NOTES

Democracy

Definition- Democracy is most simply defined as ‘rule by the people’. Its core principle is the notion of political equality, an equal distribution of political power and influence. As a political system, democracy is often associated with ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people’. Democracy can either be direct, in which voters express views that will determine specific outcomes, or indirect in that representatives are elected to decide policy on the public’s behalf. Democracy is commonly associated with the liberal-democratic model of democracy. As such, its distinctive features are regular, free and fair elections, universal adult suffrage, and party and candidate competition.

There are two types of Democracy, these are Direct and Representative Democracies.

DIRECT DEMOCRACY- Direct democracy is based on the direct, unmediated and continuous participation of citizens in the tasks of government. This means that, through whatever mechanisms, the public makes public policy, rather than merely chooses who will make policy on its behalf. Direct democracy thus obliterates the distinction between the government and the governed and thus between the state and civil society. It is a system of popular self-government. In so-called Athenian democracy, it operates through a form of government by mass meeting; however, its most modern manifestation is in the use of referendums.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY- Representative Democracy is a limited and indirect form of democracy. It is limited as popular participation in government is infrequent and brief, being restricted to the act of voting every few years. Representative democracy is thus often associated with electoral democracy. It is indirect as the public do not exercise power themselves they merely select those who will on their behalf. This form of rule is democratic because electoral and representative mechanisms establish an effective link between government and people. Representative’s maybe local councilors in the town halls or MP’s in the House of Commons.

Advantages of Direct Democracy

Generates Interest and Knowledge- Direct Democracy creates better informed and more knowledgeable citizens, this would have educational benefits. Direct and regular popular participation in government encourages people to take more interest in politics and better understand their own society, both how it works and how it should work.
Legitimate and Stable Government- Direct Democracy ensures that rule is legitimate, in this sense people are more likely to accept decisions they have made themselves. When Citizens make political decisions directly they have to take responsibility for them, there is no else to blame. This helps to ensure a stable government.
Avoids Patronage and Nepotism- Elected Individuals will not be able to appoint people to high positions based on their mutual loyalty, as opposed to their competence.
Increase participation- Direct democracy enables the electorate to participate directly in the government of the country and in deciding on relevant policies to follow. It will have effect of raising awareness of issues among the public, and of providing information to help make decisions. This has certainly been true of recent referendums held in the UK on a range of issues such as mayoral and regional government.
INFORM GOVT. OF PUBLIC OPINION- Direct Democracy also allows the electorate to inform governments of public opinion at any particular time. For example, the unsuccessful referendum held in the North East in 2004 persuaded the Government to give up the idea of English regional assemblies. When a government makes a decision, public consultation in this way will give added legitimacy to that decisions, and to help keep politicians accountable to the electorate.

Disadvantages of Direct Democracy

Scale- Direct democracy works extremely well on a small system such as the ancient Athenian system. On a larger scale and in a modern state it would be unworkable, given the millions of people there are and the numerous issues on which to decide. Society would probably cease to function if attempts were made to return it as direct democracy.
Lack of knowledge- The people may lack the education, knowledge and experience to govern wisely in their own interests, this could lead to the public making hasty and wrong decisions, which will have negative consequences. Representative democracy therefore has the advantage of offering government by experts.

tyranny of the majority -Direct democracy may also produce what is termed the “tyranny of the majority” in which minorities are placed at a disadvantage with either discrimination against them and possible restriction on their freedom. This is sometimes viewed as “mob rule.” Direct democracy can be seen to undermine
political instability -Direct democracy may also result in political instability, as increased levels of popular participation makes citizens more passionate and committed to their own beliefs and causes, leading to conflict and perhaps civil strife. Representative democracy therefore has the advantage that, in distancing ordinary citizens from politics, it encourages them to accept compromise.

Voter Apathy- Direct democracy places a heavy burden on all ordinary citizens, who have to participate continuously in the processes of government. This may become tedious and could lead to participation decreasing as a result. Also the average voter may not be interested in politics and therefore may not participate. This would be a particular problem if those that voted were not proportionate to the population. Representative democracy therefore has the advantage that it creates a division of labour enabling citizens to get on with their working life and domestic existence.

Advantages of a Representative Democracy

Knowledge of Experts- Elected representatives may be expected to use superior knowledge, judgment and experience to consider issues more deeply and so avoid over emotional hast decisions.

Mediation between groups- Representatives and parties are able to mediate between the conflicting interests of different sections of society. For example should we allow into the country large numbers of immigrants as a source of cheap labour, or should we restrict immigration in case the country becomes dangerously over populated with low income families?. These are difficult, controversial issues which require serious lengthy reflection.
Protection of Minorities- Representatives are in a position to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority. For example elected representatives may be able to protect the interest of cyclists against the majority who drive cars. Similarly the cause of tobacco smoker’s conflict with the wishes of the majority non-smokers, who want to see the practice restricted. If either issue were resolved by direct democracy, the majority would always prevail.
MAKE SENSE OF DEMANDS- The demands of different sections of the community are often incoherent and do not collectively add up to a logical political idea .Representatives can make sense of illogical and incoherent demands made by the people and convert them into practical ideas.
Simple system- Representative democracy in the UK has the advantage of being a relatively simple system to operate at a national level in terms of voting methods, and a system that is generally understood and accepted by the bulk of the adult population. It is far more simple compared to the direct form, here the electorate is too large and too inexperienced to grasp the technical and complex aspects and are unable to understand the implications of most problems.

Disadvantages of a Representative Democracy

Big gap between people and government -Representative democracy always means that there is a gulf between government and the people.
Unreliable Representatives -Representative Democracy places too much faith in politicians, who are always liable to distort public opinion by imposing their views and preferences on it. It therefore amounts to “government by politicians” acting only in the name of the people.
Representative Democracy is unrepresentative - Individuals elected to office tend not to be demographically representative of their constituency. They tend to be wealthier, more educated, more male, and closer to the majority race, ethnic group or religion than a random sample would produce. Ethnic minorities remain poorly represented in the latter with only 1% of MPs being Black or Asian. Representative governments are usually and unwilling to follow the welfare of all sections of society, and will tend to legislate for what they believe to be the majority opinion. Many significant minorities may well find themselves specifically unrepresented in such a system.
Elective dictatorship- The FPTP voting system has tended to produce the so called elective dictatorship of recent years. Governments with significantly large majorities, which have tended to dominate Parliament, and whose accountability to the people becomes suspect between general elections.
Disproportionate elections- FPTP does not award seats in proportion to the total votes cast, this system discriminates in favour of some parties against others. Winning parties win a considerably higher proportion of seats than votes. For Example Labour in 1997 won 43.3% of the vote but was converted to a 63.4% landslide of the available seats. In 1983 The Liberal/Social Democrat Alliance won 25.4% of the vote but was converted to 3.5% of the seats available.

Features of a representative democracy

Accountability – In such a system, the representatives must be periodically answerable for the decision they make. If politicians want to be re-elected, their action needs to come under public scrutiny. The process of democratic election facilitates accountability in a representative democracy. Or, to put it the other way round, the electorate, in some way, exercises control over the representatives.
Reflect electorate – A representative assembly should reflect the make up of its society, both in terms of opinion and social, ethnic and gender groups. In other ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Features of a representative democracy

Accountability – In such a system, the representatives must be periodically answerable for the decision they make. If politicians want to be re-elected, their action needs to come under public scrutiny. The process of democratic election facilitates accountability in a representative democracy. Or, to put it the other way round, the electorate, in some way, exercises control over the representatives.
Reflect electorate – A representative assembly should reflect the make up of its society, both in terms of opinion and social, ethnic and gender groups. In other words, elected representatives should bear a resemblance to those people who elected them to office. For this reason all the main political parties are striving for far more parliamentary from ethnic minorities
Representatives to Constituents- Some representatives argue that it is their duty only to do what their electors or their party has instructed them to do. Others argue that once elected it is their duty to act according to their conscience. Edward Burke put forward the idea of following your conscience, his idea has made a lasting impression on British politicians and it often used by MPs to justify their policies.
Ignoring the Electorates view - Politicians are elected to govern as well as to represent. On occasion, this may involve public opinion being overlooked, even if this proves to be unpopular. Decisions may be taken which might anger the public. But may be necessary in the long run. Sometimes politicians may take a gamble in the hopes of a positive outcome.

Outline three differences between direct and representative democracy.

They differ over the nature of political participation. In a direct democracy the people make policy directly, whereas in a representative democracy popular participation is indirect, in that the public merely choose (usually by election) who will make policy on their behalf.

They also differ on the extent of popular participation. In direct democracy popular participation is ongoing and continuous, whereas in a representative democracy it is infrequent and brief, usually limited to the act of voting every few years.

In addition, in a direct democracy the people are the government, in that no institutions stand between government and the people, whereas representative democracies operate through intermediate institutions that both represent the people and help to make government accountable.

Features of the UK’s Democracy

Free and Fair Elections- Free and Fair elections is vital to democracy as it allows electors to vote for the people or policies they most prefer. No Choice or little choice means that electors have to vote for what is available. Electoral choice is ensured through competition between candidates and parties.
Parliament- Parliament is the only popularly elected institution in UK central government, it lies at the heart the democratic process. This means that the UK is a parliamentary democracy. Parliament is the main institution that links government to the people. It does this by following hat is called representative and responsible government. Parliament ensures representative government because the dominant chamber in parliament, the House of Commons, is elected. MP’s are meant to represent their constituencies, and the house of commons serves as the debating chamber of the nation.
Pressure Groups- Pressure groups are a measure of public opinion. This means that, on a range of issues, political parties can determine the views of the electorate, and it can be argued that governments can be responsive to the views of the people. In the 1990’s, following the Dunblane killings, the snowdrop campaign prompted the government to take actions against gun control. Democratic processes operating through elections & political parties are supplemented by the existence of pressure groups, which broaden political participation & provide the public with an additional channel of communication with government, particularly in relation to particular issues.

The UK is a parliamentary democracy- In that Parliament is the central democratic institution, operating as a deliberative (what does this mean) assembly which establishes an indirect link between government & the people (explain how this happens). Parliament ensures that government is accountable to the people (exactly how does this week), in that they are formed as the result of parliamentary elections & only survive as long as they retain the confidence of the House of Commons.
The ‘party system’- Britain has traditionally had a 2-party system; since the 1920’s the vast majority of voters have voted either Labour or Tory. Our FPTP (first past the post) system maintains this because it usually over-represents Labour and the Tories and under-represents other parties like the Liberal Democrats. Because the 2 main parties dominate parliamentary seats they also dominate how party business is conducted. This in turn affects how the media cover politics and therefore how the public see it. However the UK is democratic in the sense that a number of parties compete for power, giving the public a choice of candidates & manifesto’s at election time.
Devolved Bodies and Elected Local Authorities -The UK has a system of elected local authorities such as the London Assembly & elected devolved bodies in Scotland, Wales & N.Ireland. The devolved bodies, The Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have primary legislative powers over many areas. This means that they can pass their own laws on topics such as education which have been devolved from Westminster. However, the Welsh Assembly is limited to secondary legislative powers. This means it is only able to vary some laws set by the Houses of Parliament and only in those issues which have been devolved to Cardiff.
Referendums- It is a contemporary example of direct democracy. This is democratic as it gives the public political power to veto proposals in which they think is wrong or provide consent to issues they support. Its democratic as it allows political participation.

Criticisms of the UK’s Democracy

The Westminster voting system- The first past the post system used for elections to the House of Commons has been criticized for distorting electoral practices and creating a system of plurality rule in which governments win fewer than half of the votes cast. FPTP does not award seats in proportion to the total votes cast, this system discriminates in favour of some parties against others. Winning parties win a considerably higher proportion of seats than votes.

Non elected institutions- There are a number of key non-elected institutions within UK government. The chief of these are the monarchy (the head of state) and the House of Lords, neither of which therefore enjoy democratic legitimacy or promote political participation.

House of Lords- Critics say that the House of Lords is undemocratic as it is not elected and is not accountable to the electorate. Also some object to the fact that life peers are appointed on the recommendation of the PM. Also the hereditary principle (where the title of Lord is inherited by those who are close to the deceased Lord) has been heavily criticized as it restricts opportunities for others to be a lord and also restricts the social composition of the house. Lord tend to be predominately white, wealthy, privately educated males with the same narrow interests.
The ‘2 party system’-The two main parties are not really representative of the majority of the electorate (most governments win less than 50% of the votes) and therefore the party in power does not have a mandate to govern. Also the UK’s party system is often seen to afford limited or inadequate democratic representation, as it is dominated by two main parties that operate as the only credible parties of government. Minor parties are therefore marginalised and under-represented in elected assemblies and in government.
Pressure group Power- Pressure group power has been portrayed as a threat to democracy in the UK in a number of ways. These include that pressure groups may advantage the already rich and powerful, especially business groups; that pressure group leaders are not elected and therefore not publicly accountable; that the influence pressure groups exert is usually not subject to public scrutiny and that many pressure groups lack internal democracy.
The control the executive has over parliament- The processes of parliamentary democracy are undermined by the fact that Parliament is, in most cases, subject to executive control, particularly as the government typically has a majority in the House of Commons. The UK system has therefore been described as an ‘elective dictatorship’.

The European Union- Critics argue that EU institutions are a threat to national sovereignty. Sovereignty requires autonomy, but the existence of the EU, by definition restricts a nation’s freedom and will. Euro-skeptics say the EU should be a free trade area and no more. Also Britain has lost control over British law and may lose its independence in making decisions that may benefit the country. A growing body of policy decisions are made by EU institutions over which the UK electorate has little democratic control, the EU has led some to allege that the UK suffers from a ‘democratic deficit’.

To what extent has the UK political system become more democratic in recent years.

It could be argued that the past decade has seen the UK become a much more democratic country. The election of the Blair Government in 1997 heralded a range of constitutional changes which many argue have fitted the UK political system for the 21st Century. Other would argue that New labour, despite its reforms, have failed to tackle the problems of the UK’s democratic system.

First, the introduction of devolution has strengthened democracy by giving a stronger and more independent political voice to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Previously, they had been represented primarily through Parliament, where they were always outnumbered by English MPs. However, the devolution process has not furnished England with an independent voice, and the devolved bodies remain subordinate to a sovereign Parliament.

Second, referendums have been more widely used since 1997. This has enabled representative democracy to be supplemented by a stronger element of direct democracy, and brought other benefits such as improved political education. However, referendums tend to be used at the convenience of the government of the day, and may be used to reduce the accountability of governments for political decisions, thereby weakening democracy.

Third, PR electoral systems have been introduced for the newly-created bodies since 1997. This has improved the representation of small parties and prevented electoral distortion. However, Westminster elections continue to be based on a majoritarian electoral system that leads to plurality rule and underpins a system of elective dictatorship. This includes, the fact that the government has broken a promise it made to hold a referendum on electoral reform for the House of Commons.

Fourth, The Government has also taken the important step of abolishing the vast majority of hereditary peers in the House of Lords, whose right to sit there was based on birth. However, it ha not completed the reforms of the house of Lords and appears to be resisting an elected second chamber, some say the government now has a greater say over who sits in the lords.

Fifth, the government have introduced the Human Rights Act, which for the first time sets out clearly the rights citizens enjoy. This means that citizens no longer need to seek ratification from a court in Strasbourg, because effectively the European Convention of Human Rights has been incorporated into English and Scottish Law. However, as soon as the act came out it was amended to restrict the rights of terrorists. Many civil rights campaigners are calling for a written constitution, which they argue is the only way too protect the rights of citizens fully.

On Balance, despite some drawbacks, the pattern of reform over recent years dose point to the UK becoming more democratic.

Referendums

Definition- A referendum is a vote in which the electorate can express a view on a particular issue of public policy. As such, it provides the public with means of directly influencing government policy, although some referendums are advisory rather than binding (in theory at least, this applies to all referendums in the UK, as Parliament is sovereign). Referendums are therefore a device of direct democracy, although they are typically used to supplement, rather than replace, representative democracy.

Referendums differ from elections as an election is a vote for an MP or a Political Party. A Referendum is a device for Citizens to voice there opinions.

Examples of Referendums Held

European Community Membership Vote 1975 – The Labour Government of the day was itself split on whether Britain should remain a member. Prime Minister Hard Wilson therefore ordered the referendum to settle the issue and to avoid the collapse of his government. During the Campaign ministers were free to oppose the official line that Britain should remain a member. The decisive yes vote ensured the governments survival.
The Good Friday Agreement 1998 – This had two purposes, first to get supports for the Northern Ireland peace process and second to get endorsement for devolved powers to Northern Ireland from London. It was necessary to secure not just a Yes vote, but a decisive one to ensure that all sections of Northern Ireland were in favour. The Yes vote of over 70% was considered good enough. This put real pressure on the political leaders of Northern Ireland to accept the Good Friday Agreement.

Devolution for Scotland and Wales 1997-Voters in Scotland were asked two questions. The first was whether they wanted a Scottish Parliament and the second was whether they wanted THE Scottish Parliament to have tax varying powers. On Both issues they voted Yes. The Welsh were asked only one question about limited devolution. Devolution has subsequently gone through after the Yes vote and this time the government did agree to be bound by the results. Here the government supported the measures, which had been in the labour manifesto.

The North East Referendum 2004 – This Concerned setting up an assembly in the North East. This was seen as test run for future referendums in other English regions. The decisive 78% rejection led to the government abandoning the policy of setting up more assemblies in English Regions.

Advantages of Referendums

Direct Democracy- Being a device of Direct Democracy, Referendums give the general public direct and un-interfered control over government decision making. This ensures that the publics views and interests are properly and accurately adhered to and not distorted by politicians who claim to support them.
Political Education- By Widening the opportunities for political participation, and allowing debate to focus on a particular issue, referendums help to create a better informed, more educated and more politically engaged electorate. Members of the public have a stronger incentive to think and act politically.
Reduced Government Power- Referendums provide a much needed check on government power, because the government has less control over their outcome than it does over Parliament. Citizens are therefore protected against the danger of a power hungry government.
Constitutional changes- Constitutional changes are popularly endorsed through referendums because constitutional rules affect the way the country is governed, and so are more important than ordinary laws. This also ensures that any newly created body has democratic legitimacy.

Disadvantages of Referendums

Ill informed Decisions- By Comparison with elected politicians, the general public is ill informed, poorly educated and lack political experience. The public’s interests ate therefore best safeguarded by a system of ‘government by the politicians’ rather than any form of popular self-government.
Irresponsible government- Referendums allow governments to pardon themselves of responsibility by handing decisions to the electorate. As governments are elected to govern, they should both make policy decisions and be made publicly accountable for their decisions.
Unreliable views- Referendums provide only a snapshot of public opinion at one point in time. They are therefore an unreliable guide to the public interest. This also makes them particularly inappropriate for making or endorsing constitutional decisions, as these have long term implications.
WEAKENS PARLIAMENT- The use of referendums does not strengthen democracy, instead it replace direct democracy for parliamentary democracy. This undermines parliamentary sovereignty, but also means that decisions are not made on the basis of careful deliberation and debate.

Outline two differences between a referendum and an election

A referendum is a popular vote on an issue of public policy. Governments present voters with a Yes or no choice. Referendums are an example of direct democracy as the public make law or policy. Referendums are called at the discretion of government and their outcomes do not threaten the government’s power.
Elections are a means of filling a political office through a popular vote. They are an example of representative democracy as they select those who will make policy on behalf of the public. Elections can bring about the transfer of government.

Elections

Functions of a general election.

A general election is a full parliamentary election involving the re-election of all seats in the House of Commons, and takes place within five years of the previous general election. General elections have several key functions.

CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT- They are a mechanism for making governments and, possibly, for the transfer of power from one government to the next. They also renew existing governments and can also remove them. This happens in the UK through the strength of parties in the House of Commons, governments typically being formed from the leading members of the party that ‘wins’ the general election, in that it has gained an overall majority of seats in the House of Commons.

To provide representation. This is based on the assumption that general elections are fair and competitive, and serve as a means through which demands are channelled from the public to the government. In the UK this is often linked to the idea that the winning party in a general election has gained a public mandate to carry out the policies outlined in its election manifesto. General elections can also be said to be a way of recruiting politicians, a means of influencing public policy, a mechanism for educating voters and a means of fostering legitimacy for the political system.
Deliver verdict- We are delivering a verdict on the performance of the government in power. If satisfied we will vote for the governments party candidate if not we will vote for another. Example, 1997 when voters showed their unhappiness toward the conservatives.
Granting a Mandate to the new government- We are granting authority to whichever party wins the election, this applies to any party not just the one that you voted for seen as you participated in the electoral process.

First past the post

The ‘first past the post’ electoral system is used for the House of Commons and also for local elections. The Process of electing a candidate occurs every five years, the date in particular is decided by the Prime Minister. This system has a number of features. These include the following. First, the country is divided into a collection of single-member constituencies, usually of equal size (there are 646 in parliamentary elections). Second, voters select a single candidate, marking his or her name with a cross on the ballot paper (there is no preferential voting). Third, the winning candidate needs only to achieve a plurality of votes. Meaning whoever received the largest number of votes, not necessarily an overall majority. This is the ‘first past the post’ rule, and it ensures a winner-takes-all outcome. Fourth, the voter simply puts an 'X' next to the name of the chosen candidate. Once members have been individually elected, the party with the most seats in Parliament, regardless of whether or not it has a majority of votes, normally becomes the next government.

The need for electoral reform

Advantages of First-Past-The-Post

Strong government- They argue that its great strength is that FPTP produces strong single party governments. Since most general elections result in a single party is able to implement its proposed programme without interference from other parties. It is able, to fulfil the promise that it made to the electorate. It is also the case that coalition governments, which PR systems are likely to produce, are the result of compromise deals between parties after a general election. FPTP avoids the likelihood of coalition governments. Coalitions with other parties would give unwarranted influence to small parties which do not represent the opinion of a large section of society.

Constituency Link- A second argument in favour of the present electoral system is that it ensures that there are strong links between an MP and the local community. Small single-member constituencies mean that local people can air their grievance directly with their MP. Supporters point out that MPs have sole responsibility for the area which they represent and once elected they represent all those who live in the area, not just those who voted for them.

Easy to understand- FPTP is easy to understand, everyone has a vote and the candidate with the most votes is the winner. Finally, it can be argued that the current electoral system should be preserved simply because it works and has been proved to work over many years. All other electoral systems are flawed and so there is little point in replacing one flawed system with another.

Disadvantages of First-Past-The-Post

Disproportionate - FPTP does not award seats in proportion to the total votes cast, this system discriminates in favour of some parties against others. Winning parties win a considerably higher proportion of seats than votes. For Example Labour in 1997 won 43.3% of the vote but was converted to a 63.4% landslide of the available seats. In 1983 The Liberal/Social Democrat Alliance won 25.4% of the vote but was converted to 3.5% of the seats available.
Low Voter Choice – Voter choice is low under FPTP as voters only have one vote, and they do not have the option of numbering their choices 1,2,3 etc in order of preference. The candidates are selected by a small number of party members, and voters can only choose between parties. If the candidate selected for your party has views with which you disagree, for example you may be a pro-European Conservative with a Euro sceptic candidate; you are left with no alternative choice within that party.
Tactical Voting - FPTP encourage tactical voting techniques, Voters are pressured to vote for one of the two candidates they predict are most likely to win, even if their true preference is neither, because a vote for any other candidate will be likely to be wasted and have no impact on the final result.
Wasted votes - A large number of votes are 'wasted' i.e. they do not go towards the election of any candidate. For example, in the UK General Election of 2005, 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates and 18% were excess votes - a total of 70% wasted votes.

Proportional Representation

Proportional Representation refers to any electoral system designed to achieve an election result in which the number of seats that a party receives is in proportion to the percentage of votes that the party wins. There are a number of proportional systems and depending on which system is used; there can be a variation in the degree of proportionality achieved. Factors that may vary form system to system include the number of representatives elected in each constituency, the presence of preferential voting, and whether voters choose form a list of candidates or simply choose a party.

Proportional electoral systems are used in the UK for elections to the devolved bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Greater London Authority, and the European Parliament. The Additional Member System is used for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Greater London Assembly. The Single Transferable Vote system is used for the Northern Ireland Assembly. The ‘closed’ regional party list system is used for the European Parliament and the Supplementary Vote is used for the London mayor.

Advantages of Proportional Representation

The system more clearly represents the wishes of the voters’ as expressed at the ballot box.
Fewer votes are 'wasted', therefore greater participation may be encouraged. FPTP may lead people into not voting for what they might see as a wasted cause.
Minority parties might end up with a much fairer representation.
There are more opportunities for independent candidates - only one (Martin Bell) won a constituency vote in the 1997 election and he lost his attempt to win another independent seat in 2001 using FPTP.
PR is likely to remove 'safe' seats with their characteristics of low turn-outs. If each vote counts, people will feel more inclined to involve themselves in elections.
Voters may have more of a choice of candidates using PR and it is possible that those candidates may be of better quality and represent their constituents in a more professional manner.
The two-party system (which may have both pros and cons) is usually eliminated using PR and the end result is more ‘pluralist’. The possibility of single-party 'elective dictatorship' is greatly diminished.

Disadvantages of Proportional Representation

Weak Government because of coalitions- PR increases the representativeness of government and at the same time it also increases its instability. This accusation is based on the tendency of PR elections to produce multiparty governments. The more parties elected, the more likely it is that one party will not win the majority of seats and that the government will have to be ruled by a coalition of major and minor parties. Critics maintain that these multiparty coalitions may be quite fragile, breaking apart due to squabbles between the parties over policy issues. They often cite Italy as the classic case of this problem; it was plagued for decades by coalitions that were continually falling apart and reforming.
Small Party’s have too much power- In a multiparty system a small party can be in a position to determine the composition of the ruling coalition. For example, if one large party wins 42% of the seats and another 38%, and a small party wins 20%, that gives the small party the balance of power and puts it in the position of "king-maker." It can decide which larger party it joins to form a government majority. Thus it can be a small party, not the voters, that really decides who wins the election. This is especially a problem when a small party bypasses the party that received the most votes to form a ruling coalition with the party that came in second place. Critics argue that it is undemocratic to exclude the most popular party from government.
No Constituency Link- A move to very large multi-member districts undermines the relationship that exists between constituents and representatives in small single-member constituencies. This is especially true in proportional representation systems like Israel and the Netherlands where the entire country is one district and there are not even regional districts. But even where PR uses regional constituencies, they may be so large geographically that access and communication becomes more problematic.

Proportional Electoral Systems

Additional Member system

In this system the electorate have two votes, one for a party, and one for a candidate in a constituency. Candidates are elected using the simple plurality (first past the post) system. The party seats are allocated using the party list system .Because of the combination of two systems it is known as a hybrid. The Additional Member system is the only system that results in two different types of representatives being elected. One represents a specific body of people in a constituency. The other has no such constituency to represent. The Additional Member System has two goals to make a system somewhat proportional and maintain the concept of an MP representing a constituency.

Where It’s Used

Additional Member Systems are used in elections for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, electing government administrations as well as representatives. In Scotland the use of this system meant that coalition government would be formed consisting of the Labour Party and The Liberal Democrats labour and the Liberal Democrats have worked well in coalition governments since the first elections in 1999. This has led to some interesting policy differences with Westminster over issues such as tuition fees. In Wales the Labour Party are a minority government as they do not have a majority of seats.

Effects

It could be argued that AMS makes minority governments more likely, but this is a complicated issue. Traditionally, Labour was able to dominate the political scene in Scotland and Wales. If devolution had happened 30 or 40 years ago, it is likely that even using AMS, labour would have governed in Scotland Wales with majorities. However, voting patterns have changed, and the rise of nationalist parties has meant that in Scotland Labour needs to form a coalition with another party. In Wales, where labour has remained stronger, the party has survived for the most part as a minority administration.

Small Parties often do well as a consequence of proportional electoral systems, and this can be seen in the election of members of the Scottish Socialist Party to the Scottish Parliament. The Conservatives are against proportional representation and ironically won no seats in the 1997 Westminster General elections, even though they received 20% of the votes. They did however win seats in both the 1999 and 2003 elections.

Supporters of AMS claim that they retain the best feature of plurality and majority systems, this being the fact that everyone has a local MP, and remove the worst feature this being the fact that some parties are over-represented in Parliament. Critics argue that two classes of representation are created, those who have to fight for re-election in their constituency and those whose re-election is ensured if they remain at the top of the party list.

The List system

This system involves multi-member constituencies. In a closed list system, each party submits a list of candidates for each constituency, but the ballot paper contains a list of political parties rather than a list of individual candidates. Seats are allocated to the party according to the proportion of votes won, a quota is calculated to determine how many votes are needed to win a seat. The number of seats allocated to a party is then filled by the required number of candidates from the party’s list. The system is closed because voters are unable to express a preference for a particular candidate. The system is also closed so that the party determines the names of candidates on the lists and the order in which they appear, the closer a candidate is to the top of the list, the greater his or her chances of getting a seat.

In an Open list system voters are able to vote for individual candidates and the party vote is determined by adding together all the votes cast for the different candidates in that party. Seats are then allocated to a party according to the proportion of votes won by the party. If a party wins one or more seats, candidates are elected according to the number of votes they won; with the candidate who won most votes for that party being elected first and so on. Many argue that this is as fairer system that empowers the elector and reduces the influence of the party leadership.

Where its used

This system is used for UK election to the European Parliament. The UK is divided into 12 larger multi-member constituencies, which return more than one representative to the Parliament. There are 78 MEPs altogether.

Effects

The List System has made some big differences to party representation in the UK. The Simple Plurality (FPTP) tended to favour Labour and the Conservatives, because of the solidity of their support in their respective strongholds. Using the list-based system described above resulted in parties such as the Greens and UKIP gaining national representation for the first time ever in 1999. In 2004 UKIP managed to win 12 seats to the European Parliament, this would not have been possible without using a proportional electoral system.

The fact that some List systems are closed in the UK has been a source of some concern because it gives the leadership of political parties the power to determine where an individuals name appears on the list. This system has also ended the direct link between the constituent and the MEP, for example in London 9 MEPs are returned.

Single Transferable Vote

In STV there are multi-member constituencies (in the Northern Ireland Assembly, each returns 6 members). Parties put up as many candidates as there are seats to fill in each constituency. The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a of designed to minimize and provide while ensuring that votes are explicitly expressed for individual candidates rather than for . It achieves this by using multi-member and by transferring all votes that would otherwise be wasted to other eligible candidates. Seats are allocated according to a quota system. If any candidate reaches the quota on first preferences, then the candidate is elected. STV initially allocates an elector's vote to his or her most preferred candidate and then, after candidates have been either elected or eliminated, transfers surplus or unused votes according to the voter's stated preferences.STV is used in local and assembly elections in Northern Ireland and also for elections in Scotland.

Supplementary Vote

The Supplementary Vote system is similar to the Alternative Vote system, the key difference being is that under the Supplementary Vote voters are limited to indicating a first and second preference. A candidate who receives more than 50% of the first preference votes on the first count is elected. If no candidate reaches 50% of the vote the two candidates with the highest number of votes are retained and the rest of the candidates are eliminated. The second preferences on the ballot papers of the eliminated candidates are examined and reallocated to the remaining candidates. The candidate with the most votes at the end of this process wins the election. The system is used to elect the Mayor of London.

Effects of the Supplementary Vote system

This system ensures that the candidate who is elected has the support of over 50% of those who turned out to vote. However, it does encourage parties to come to deals beforehand, urging voters to ‘Vote Smith 1, Vote Jones 2’, for example. As such, it may promote more collaborative politics.

If this system were used to elect an entire assembly, there is no guarantee that the governing party would have over 50% of the votes. The Problem is that not all seats are the same size and turnouts vary between constituencies, as does the size of the winning candidate’s majority. Add up these factors across 659 individual results and anomalies begin to emerge, the chance of a government gaining a parliamentary majority without a majority of the national vote becomes distinctly possible, especially if the parliamentary majority is a narrow one.

The system therefore remains as flawed, at least as far as the national result is concerned, as the FPTP system. Many supporters of electoral reform reject this system because it lacks proportionality and it is unfair to some political parties.

EXAM TIP