The AMS system uses single member constituencies where, the electorate has two votes; for constituency candidates and for party elections from a regional list. Party votes from constituency elections are compared with votes overall (including regional elections) and the party is allocated the correct amount of seats e.g. a part gains 16% votes in a constituency election- which equals no seats. 18 seats are reallocated from a regional elections.
In the May 2003 elections for Wales and Scotland using the AMS system, parties were affected in different ways. In Wales, Labour did very badly from the list system (0%) yet got a majority of votes from the Welsh constituency (30%), Whereas Conservative did very well from the list system with 10% votes. These patterns were repeated in the Scottish votes, with Labour gaining 46% votes from the constituency election and conservative attaining 15% from the list. This shows that for Labour first part the post has helped them more than PR, and in Scotland the high constituency votes along with good votes from the socialist party, it shows Scotland want to be more left wing. PR has allowed more independent parties to have a chance e.g. in the Scottish 2003 elections, green party gained 7% votes from the list system, giving them seats in the assembly and allowing them to represent the views of their supporters.
Using PR effects the workings of political parties in many ways, PR forces coalition on government; where two governments must some together to rule a country. This can be very useful, as it installs cooperation between two views existent in the country. For example the STV system was brought to Northern Ireland in 1998 to try to resolve the troubles. It worked to begin with, as the UUP + SDLP were in coalition, and both approved of the good Friday agreement, but the two parties ideas conflicted, and they disliked each other. On two occasions power was handed back to Westminster. By the 2003 elections, the system had produced an unworkable coalition with the DUP and Sinn Fein who had huge disagreements, so for now power has been handed back to Westminster once again.
For coalitions to work, parties must create a flexible mandate, as any mandate a single party creates, would have to be compromised in a coalition. They may also have to state which party they would work best with in order to gain votes.
Sometimes PR can produce a coalition in a country that does not want one for example in Wales in 1999, Labour ran with a minority in the Welsh assembly under the AMS system, which forced them into a coalition that Wales didn’t want. By using the closed list system, the party will not know the strongest candidate in the eye of the public as it is the party who orders the candidate by preference, the electorate get no choice in which candidate they would like to represent them as an MEP. Although they see the order of preference when they vote for the party. This can lead to a constituency feeling disgruntles towards their MEP, making it hard for him/ her to represent their views.
Although using PR systems such as the closed list system and STV, means minority parties get more of a say as there is not so much of the high competition that exists tin the plurality system, where in reality only 2 parties have a chance at winning the election. This is exampled in the 1999 European elections where labour had its worse nationwide vote with 28%, conservative doing quite well with 3.8, Liberal Democrats with 12.7%, and smaller parties such as the UK Independent party (7%) and the Green party (6.3) did much better than could be achieved in the General election using the plurality system. This allows the views of more people to be represented.
Although those figures are all based on the low turnout of 24%- the lowest in Europe. This was partly due to the controversial decision to use the closed list system at the EU elections. So using PR can affect political parties in many ways. It makes it more difficult for them to make decisions as everything must be agreed with the other party, and a lot of time is wasted in debating, and often schemes and programmes often don’t leave the ground.
PR can cause a lot of problems for parties in comparison to plurality, but overall its a lot more representative and can make a big step in merging two views and bringing people together in countries which have conflicting ideas. As long as it’s held in the right conditions; two workable parties, with flexible mandates in a country that accepts coalition, PR can be the best voting system available.
