For FPTP the degree of choice you get is not very wide. This is because parties are trying to appeal to majority of people, and with two main parties and a half party all looking the same the people feel there is no need to vote. There is also the problem of tactical voting. This happens when a person feels they can’t vote for the part they want as they are not likely to get in, so they vote for the party most likely to get in that opposes the party they most dislike. This also links in to the unfairness of this system to the smaller parties. When voting in FPTP if the person you vote for doesn’t gain the seat your vote is then thrown away (known as the wasted vote). People don’t vote for smaller parties as they feel if they did the vote would be wasted, and this makes it even more difficult for the parties to get into power. The wasted vote also effects turnout to FPTP elections, making it poor as people feel they can’t vote for the party they like, however they don’t like any other party so see little point in voting.
The second system I will talk about is the’ Additional Member System’. In this system there are two ballets, the first being a vote for your constituency MP and the second being for the party you would most like to see in power. The first ballet paper is FPTP and the second is a list system. The list system allows for parties who had unfair seat distribution in the first ballet to gain more seats in the second, and often it is the parties that received little seats in the first paper that receive a majority in the second. This is the adopted system of both Scotland and Wales and is seen as a hybrid of the FPTP system due to its increase benefits and little short comings.
For proportionality this system is more proportional than FPTP, this is because it helps to redistribute the seats that parties should have originally got in the first ballet. For example in the Scotland 2003 vote (Constituency vote), labour received 46 seats (63%) with only 34% of the vote, the Liberal Democrats had 13 seats (17.8%) with 15.4% of the vote, SNP gained 9 seats (12.3%) with 23.8% of the vote and the Conservatives had 3 seats (4.1%) with 16.6% of the vote. However in the second ballot labour only received 4 extra seats as did the Liberal Democrats, the SNP received 18 and the Conservatives gained an extra 15.
However the level of proportionality poses an issue. Due to the need for a majority for a, none coalition government, countries with this system very frequently have coalition governments as it is extremely difficult to receive a majority. However it can still produce stable governments, and if parties can negotiate the coalitions often work smoothly.
This system also has the plus of a strong link to the constituency. This is thanks to the best bits of the FPTP, as you still know who you are voting for in your local area however you also get to vote for your favourite party as well as your favourite personality. This also opens up the degree of choice for people, as they are not limited to one vote, and the fact they have an extra vote opens up the possibility of having both, your favourite MP in your area and your favourite party in power, both of whom do not have to be from the same party.
This system is also much fairer on smaller parties. This is thanks to the top up seats that the list system provides meaning there is a chance for them to get into parliament, but not have too much power if they are extremist parties. All these positive points would also affect turnout results, boosting them as people don’t have to worry quite so much about wasted votes and tactical voting (through there is still the opening for both in this system).
However there is one shortcoming for this system that stems directly from the second ballet. This being, which the MPs who are brought in through the second ballet don’t look after a constituency and so are floating MP’s. This is a concern as no one knows who they are or what their effects will be in parliament, or even what they believe and their ideologies.
The Third System is STV or Single Transferable Vote. This is perhaps the most complicated system to understand. First of all the number of seats is divided against the number of votes collected and then one is added to that answer. This provides the quota needed for a majority. On the ballet paper given, you would have a list of parties and you could pick one, two or number them in order of preference. An STV election proceeds according to the following steps:
- Any candidate who has reached or exceeded the quota is declared elected
- If a candidate has more votes than the quota, that candidate's surplus votes are transferred to other candidates. Votes that would have gone to the winner instead go to the next preference listed on their ballot.
- If no one new meets the quota, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and that candidate's votes are transferred.
This process repeats until either a winner is found for every seat or there are as many seats as remaining candidates. There are variations in applying these STV rules, such as in how to transfer surplus votes from winning candidates and whether to transfer votes to already elected candidates. When the number of votes to transfer from a losing candidate is too small to change the ordering of remaining candidates, more than one candidate can be eliminated simultaneously. Because votes cast for losing candidates and excess votes cast for winning candidates are transferred to voters' next choice candidates, STV is said to minimize wasted votes.
STV is very proportional as little votes are wasted and every vote is counted at least once, however the number of seats is broadly rather than exactly proportional to voter’s party preferences. Part of the reason being that while some seats are determined by the first preference votes alone, the last few seats tend to be the result of transfers made to lower preference candidates. This allows the voters views to be taken into account more fully.
This system is very open to the likelihood of coalition due to its high level of proportionality, however in the Northern Ireland Assembly; the executive is not formed on the basis of coalition discussion. Instead ministerial possessions are allocates using the D’Hondt mechanism to allocate at least one ministry in every party with over seven seats. This was designed to create an inclusive government and to encourage power sharing between parties.
STV also leads to very little constituency link in terms of knowing who you will get in your area, as the MP’s are proportionately distributed, However there is the increased chance that it is possible to have more than one assembly representative in your area , as is the case in Northern Ireland.
STV also presents a high level of choice as it leaves the possibility for anyone to get in, and no election is ever certain who will get in. This also affects turnout because if you don’t vote then you could potentially be left with a party you don’t like in power and in your area if you don’t, so every vote counts. This system is also extremely fair to smaller parties because of the broad degree of choice available and the possibility that anyone could get in.
The final voting system is Proportional Representation. This system is probably the most simple of them all. When asked to vote, the populace simple choose which party they would prefer. The votes are then added up and the amount of seats is distributed against the amount of votes each party gained.
This system is almost 100% proportional as the number of seats is represented entirely on the number of votes the party got. An example of this is the European Election in June 2004; The Conservatives had 26.7% of the vote and gain 27 seats, Labour had 22.6% of the vote and gained 19 seats and UKIP had 16.2% of the vote and gained 12 seats.
In the terms of the European Parliament the thought of a coalition is no worry to us, however if we were to use proportional representation as a country (such as Italy) then the likely hood of a coalition is almost 100%. This is due to the high level of proportionality meaning there is never a clear majority.
Once again when thinking of the European parliament constituency kinks are nothing but if used as our voting system in England then there would be no constituency link at all. This would be due to the fact that MP’s from different parties would have to be spread out after the election to see how many seats each party had gained.
The proportional representation system is very fair on smaller parties and this is because of the high degree of choice it offers, and the possibility for any party to gain seats. However this is not always a good thing as it would pave the way to allow extremists into parliament.
So in conclusion to my report I feel I have noticed an emerging pattern. The more proportional a system gets, the more likely a coalition is and the higher the choice levels and fairness to smaller parties. In comparing all these advantages and short comings, I feel the best system is the additional member system. This is because although it is not as proportional as STV or proportional representation it does allow for some proportionality. It also may allow more coalitions however when compared to the Italian government whom use Proportional Representation, the governments produced will be stable and will still allow bills to be passed. AMS also allows the strong constituency link to be maintained, as that is a big part to voters who like to know who is looking after their area.
