The party that wins more votes nationally can still lose. In 1951 conservative won, but labour had more votes nationally and visa-versa in February 1974 where Labour won more MP’s but conservative won more votes nationally. In 1951 more people voted labour than ever before but conservative won the votes. Whereas in the 2001 general election labour only got a quarter of the vote but they still had a massive win in terms of seats, this is known as a landslide. In the UK we have a multi-party system in terms of votes, but realistically we have a two party system with the third party excluded. The system is unfair to the third party, as it is completely unproportional. For example in 1983, the Alliance won 25% of the vote but only 4% of the seats. Up to 70% of the votes are wasted, for example all of the people who voted Conservative or any other party in a constituency where labour won are wasted votes. The real elections are fought in the marginal constituencies where the seat is open to any won. Switches (people who change there opinion) can decide the political agenda because it is these people which a party needs to gain the vote of. The views are generally strong on Law and Order, Xenophobic, pro-Thatcher, and acquisitive individualism. No party in the UK has got over 50% of the vote since 1935. In 2001, in 87% of constituencies the winner had only a 1/3 of the vote and in 1/12 of these did the winner get more than ¼ of the vote.
Advantages of FFP. FFP generally produces majority gov’t (exception Feb 74). Before World War two coalition were common, when two or more parties join together. Parties produce a manifesto showing what they plan to do if they come to power and if they win they can claim a mandate from the voters to carry out there aims and objectives from there manifesto. There is no law stopping parties lying in their manifesto, and not carrying out their mandate. But the concept of the mandate is a constitutional fiction because the elections are won by the ‘Best organised minority.’ Supporters of FFP argue that it produces a stable gov’t. Opponent’s point out it has meant stable conservative governments for most of the 20th Century. It now seems that we are going to be in a labour period. FFP was in favour of the Conservatives through out the 20th century but now it seems that it is in favour of the labour party. FFP’s strength is the MP constitution. But most people don’t even know the name of there MP.
b.)
What advantages and disadvantages, if any, may result from using list systems for elections?
There are a number of important variations of way in which voting takes place with PR list systems. The most important of these is whether or not the list is open or closed. In closed list systems the voters do not get to vote for a candidate but a party and the party themselves choose who to send to gov’t. In open list systems the voters get to choose their favourable candidate within the party of their choice. Both of these systems have their advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of closed list systems being; they can be used to increase the number of women and ethnic minorities in gov’t by placing them near the top of the list so that it is more probable that they will go to par’t. Closed list systems are used in Spain, Portugal, and Norway and until recently Sweden. A majority of list systems used in the world are closed. The disadvantages of Closed list systems are; the voters do not get to have any say what candidates go to par’t, only the party. In the East Germany a top ranked candidate was uncovered to be a member of the secret police informer shortly before the election took place, he was immediately expelled, but dew to closed list systems voters had to vote for him if they wanted to support his former party. It gives immense power to the central party bureaucracy, who gets on the list or not and (crucially) where on the list they get put.
Many list systems in Europe are open. The advantages of list systems are; voters get to vote for their favourable candidate within a party giving the voters much more choice. As the voters vote for a candidate within a party, it brings rivalry between party members and can form intra-party conflict.
The additional member system; There are no by-elections. There is much more choice for the voters as they can split their vote which may be more accurately represented voters choice. Constituencies are bigger. It does however give disproportional power to the smaller parties. The parties choose the government not the voters.