Compare and contrast the purpose of elections in the political systems of Britain and America.

Paul Charles Gaffney

Elections are a means by which people exercise some degree of control over their representatives. Ideally elections should provide the opportunity for a peaceful succession and transfer of office. In fact, in recent history, elections of one form or another have been the most characteristic and widespread form of rotating and transferring office. There has been tremendous variation amongst political systems of what is considered to be an elective office and the form that it should take.

Before we can begin to explore the differences or similarities in the purpose of elections in Britain and the US we must first concentrate on what the electorate in each country votes for. In the US the have a federal system of government where the president is chosen by the electorate to represent them and their interest in the executive, the president and the vice-president are the only two politicians to be elected by a national constituency. They campaign for two months, starting after the Labor Day holiday in September but these campaigns rarely make a difference to which candidate wins because most of the electorate have already made up their minds and it is rare that a candidate who is struggling in the polls to win an election based on his/her campaign over those two months: “for the vast majority of citizens in America, campaigns do not function so much to change minds as to reinforce previous convictions.”

The US also hold elections for the House of Representatives and Congress; the elections for Congress are aimed to provide the people of the state or province where that Congressman is elected with the chance to have their more concentrated needs and agendas heard by the executive. In Britain we elect the party of our choice, be it Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem or other; the party that gains most votes wins power and holds the majority of command over law making, domestic and foreign policies. A stark contrast to America where no one institution for example, the president ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

People elect governments or representatives usually because they like the parties or candidates manifesto or they feel that their chosen vote being in power would benefit them in some way. For example, if Labour promise in their manifesto to cut petrol tax by x% it may encourage the elect to vote for them. Therefore elections seem to take two stages: the campaign and laying out of manifestos and targets and the actual election which when using the ‘First Past the Post’ system usually brings about a swift change of government or the reinstitution of the incumbent government.

In both the US and the UK the main elections i.e. the elections for the presidency and the general election are not the only elections to take place. Because there are different layers of government in both countries, smaller elections will take place. In the UK the elections for the Scottish and Welsh assemblies are two very important elections which allow the Scottish and Welsh electorate to have a layer of government which deals with the needs of that region instead of Westminster managing all of that regions affairs and policies. There are a number of key dates in the creation of the Scottish Parliament. Regarding the creations of a Scottish parliament a Referendum on 11 September 1997 showed Westminster that the Scottish electorate were largely in favour of the creation of a Scottish Parliament with tax varying powers.. The result of this was the Scotland Act 1998, which received Royal Assent on 19 November 1998. The Act provided "for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament", and gave the Secretary of State for Scotland the power to decide the date of the first election. This shows that another purpose for elections is the right to choose what is best for ones region as a whole not just voting selfishly for what one can get out of a party if it is elected to power.

In order for there to be a purpose for an election it is paramount that a political party or a campaigner attempts to makes sure that as many of the electorate as possible turn out to the ballot stations to vote; especially the electorate that are most likely to support them. Voters are more likely to turn out if they feel the election is a close run thing, this can make the voter feel that their vote is more likely to count and due to the closeness of the contest the party or candidate is more likely to concentrate their campaign resources on marginal votes. Uninformed voters are less likely to vote than informed ones because the uninformed electorate may abstain in fear of affecting the election result against their best interests. However even uninformed voters will turn out if they feel there is little difference between the main contenders in the race, one perception is that this happens when voters are disaffected, it can also happen when they would be equally happy with either alternative.

Because elections in the UK are dominated by two parties closely followed by the Liberal Democrats who in recent years have had a larger percentage in votes the electorate actually don’t have a great deal to choose from between the parties; Especially now ‘New Labour’ have broken away from many of the ideals and policies of the classic ‘Old Labour’. This could be a fundamental reason why voters are reluctant to turn out to vote anymore, they may feel that it doesn’t matter what party comes into power because it wont benefit or obviously hinder the voter. Compared to the American system of elections one would presume that voter apathy would be far higher than in Britain due to the actual number of elections they have (senate elections, congress elections, presidential elections) and the fact that they are taught in school about politics from quite a young age. However America also has a problem with voter apathy, even though through congress, the members of each state can have their more localised problems and views aired on a national basis which when compared to the British system, the English do not have such an efficient or maybe elaborate system as this.

According to official literature published by parliament “Fair and free elections are an essential part of democracy, allowing citizens to determine how they want their country to be governed.” But in reality is this what happens? Is not the purpose of voting to the electorate a means by which they can receive benefits on a more personal level, such as lower tax, cheaper goods or a higher standard of living. Unless however the individual voter is attached to a political party or has strong political views, for example the voter may be deeply concerned about vehicle emissions in urban areas and hence would be more likely to vote for a party, president or congressman who designed a manifesto policy before the elections to try and tackle that problem. But in conclusion the purpose for elections especially in Britain and America is not designed to pursue the individuals needs or desires but the status quo, how the electorate collectively wish their country to be run but in turn not forgetting how the electorate with their country to be run on a local level. In the political systems of Britain and America, they both cater for this.