Edexcel AS Politics ExamBuster 2009 - tutor2u · Edexcel AS Politics ExamBuster Tutor2u Limited Page 36 Elections Introductory concepts ‐ the typical subject of part (a) questions

Edexcel AS Politics ExamBuster

Tutor2u Limited www.tutor2u.net Page 36

Elections

Introductory concepts ‐ the typical subject of part (a) questions

Defining elections

An election is primarily a way of choosing representatives, applying to the UK and European Parliament, local government, devolved assemblies and some individuals such as the London Mayor.

Some elections, notably general elections, also choose a government in democratic states.

Elections use different systems for converting raw votes into elected seats.

It involves all or most of the citizens in showing preferences between candidates.

The functions of elections

The main function is to elect representatives, as shown above. General elections determine who shall represent the constituency in Parliament.

It may also elect a government and a Prime Minister.

An election grants a popular mandate to representatives or to a government.

Similarly they provide popular consent for the winning party to govern.

Elections are an opportunity for citizens to deliver a verdict on the performance of the outgoing government.

It also gives them a choice between different political philosophies and programmes.

They have an educative function in that they inform the public about political issues.

They are an opportunity for citizens to participate in politics and so can strengthen democracy.

Distinguishing elections from referendums

Elections are normally held at specific or at least semi‐formal intervals. Referendums can be held at any time where they are felt to be desirable.

An election is to elect representatives and leaders whereas a referendum involves a single question over a specific issue. Elections deal with a wide range of issues.

The result of elections is binding while, in the UK, referendums are advisory rather than binding on Parliament.

While the result of an election may be complex, the result of a referendum must be a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’.



Basic description of first past the post (fptp)

Also known as simple plurality.

In constituencies voters choose between different candidates and can only vote for one of those candidates.

Voters cannot show any preference between candidates from the same party but must accept the chosen candidate from each party.

The candidate who receives the most votes (known as a plurality) is elected.

It is not necessary for a candidate to achieve an absolute majority (50% plus) to be elected. For instance 434 of the 650 MPs were returned in 2010 with less than half of the constituency vote.

In general elections the party that receives an absolute majority or, failing that, more seats than any other party, is expected to form a government.

Basic operation of the regional list system (List)

The country is divided into several regions.

In each region parties are invited to submit a list of candidates with up to the number seats available in the region on that list.

Voters choose between the list of parties and can only vote once. Within each region seats are awarded to each party in general proportion to the votes cast for the party.

A closed list system means that the candidates are elected in the order in which they are placed on the list by the party leaders (the UK system for European elections).

An open system means that the voters may place the candidates from one party in their own order of preference. They can still only vote for one party, however.

The outcome is highly proportional, e.g. at the 2009 Euros UKIP took 16% of the vote and were awarded 13 of the 72 available seats.

Basic operation of Single Transferable Vote (STV)

Constituencies return more than one member, normally between 4 and 6 (6 in the Northern Ireland Assembly).

Each party may put up candidates up to the number of seats available in the constituency.

Voters may vote for any or all of the candidates in their own order of preference. They may use as many or as few votes as they wish.

Voters may place candidates from the same party in any order, whatever the parties may recommend. They can also vote for candidates from different parties.

For a candidate to be elected s/he must achieve a quota of votes. The quota is calculated as the total votes cast divided by the number of seats plus one. Finally one is added to the total. That is the electoral quota.

Any candidates who achieve the quota on first preference votes are elected immediately.

Thereafter the spare subsequent preference votes of elected candidates are distributed to the other candidates until the required number of candidates have achieved the quota. If after surplus votes are redistributed the desired number of candidates is not achieved, the bottom placed candidates are eliminated and their preference votes are re‐allocated.



Basic operation of the Additional Member System (AMS)

It is a hybrid system, i.e. a combination of two systems running side by side.

A proportion of the total seats in the Parliament or assembly operate on the basis of first past the post. In Scotland and Wales this is about two thirds of the total seats.

The other third of the seats are elected on the basis of a regional list system (see above).

There is a variation in Scotland and Wales. The regional list seats are not awarded proportionally. There is a ‘differential top‐up’. This means that parties which do less well in the constituency elections, are awarded more than their proportional share in the regional list seats. This counteracts the distorting effects of the first past the post section. The result is a broadly proportional outcome overall.

The method for deciding which parties win regional top‐up seats in the regional legislatures is known as the d'Hondt system Firstly, party list votes are added together from each of the constituencies making up the region. These totals are then divided by the number of seats each party has won ‐ plus one. The party with the highest resulting total elects one Additional Member, and this process continues until all the regional seats have been filled.



Basic operation of the Alternative Vote (AV)

AV is a term designed to cover a variety of instant run‐off elections – in theory therefore it eliminates the need for a second round of voting as would be the case with the Second Ballot (e.g. French presidency).

The system guarantees that the winner secures a majority (i.e. of 50%) of the vote.

It is a preferential system, where voters are given more than one vote and rank candidates in order, as is the case for the London Mayor contest and locally elected mayors throughout the rest of the country.

If no candidate secures a majority of the first preference votes, then the candidate with the lowest number of first preference votes is eliminated and their second preferences carry the same value as first preference votes. This process continues until there is a winner.

Variations of this system could include eliminating more than one candidate with a low numbers of first preferences at a time, or discounting ballots where only one candidate is chosen by the elector, and so forth.

Define proportional representation (PR)

PR is a voting system designed to ensure that the proportion of the seats a party wins in the legislature is broadly proportional to the share of the vote.

If a party wins 30%of the vote, it should receive approximately 30% of the available seats.

The term is a broad umbrella covering a range of electoral systems, such as AMS.

It is different therefore from plurality or majoritarian voting systems.

Although PR type systems often produce legislatures with a closer gender or racial composition to the voting system, this is a secondary outcome and it is not what it is designed to do.

To achieve proportionality, complex quotas are often employed.

Basic operation of the Supplementary Vote (SV)

Used to elect a single person such as a president or a mayor.

In a first vote the voters show a single preference for one of the candidates.

If any candidate receives an absolute majority (50% plus) of these votes they are elected.

If no candidate achieves an absolute majority, then all but the top two candidates are eliminated and the second preferences of those outside the top two are redistributed, effectively carrying the same weight as first preferences, and only if they are for either of the top two candidates.

One of these two candidates must then win an overall majority.

A variation in the London Mayor election means that voters show their second preference at the same time as showing their first preference – i.e. they show a first and second choice in two separate columns (though ballots showing just a first preference are valid). There is then no need for two separate ballots.

The nature of mandate and manifesto

The mandate is effectively the authority to govern, granted by voters.



At UK general elections it is accepted that the party which wins the election has been granted a mandate to govern by the people.

As each party produces an election manifesto, it is also accepted that the governing party has a mandate to implement all aspects of that manifesto.

Parliament can act as the guardian of the manifesto and the Lords in particular may challenge measures which do not conform to the mandate.

There is also an implied ‘doctor’s mandate’ suggesting that the winning party has the authority to do whatever it considers necessary to further the national interest, even if such measures were not included in its election manifesto.

Obviously these twin concepts were put to the test after the May 2010 election did not result in any party securing an absolute majority. As a result, manifesto promises were compromised, and some question whether the Con‐Lib pact has a mandate to govern.

Part (b) questions

Main consequences or effects of the first past the post system

Most MPs are elected on less than 50% of the votes in their constituency (434/650 in May 2010). In other words more people voted against each MPs than voted for them.

It also means that governments normally achieve an absolute majority of the seats in the House of Commons without winning an absolute majority of the total votes. No government since 1945 has won an overall majority of the total votes cast in a general election, but there have only been two occasions (February 1974, and May 2010) when no party achieved an overall majority of the seats in the Commons.

This in turn means that Britain has for many years (since 1945) featured single party government because it could command an absolute majority in the Commons and so virtually guarantee to pass nearly all its legislation.

A positive interpretation of this says that governments can be strong and decisive and do not suffer the normal weaknesses of coalitions. It also means the government has a very clear electoral mandate and can be judged on the basis of how well it has delivered its mandate.

A negative interpretation is that it creates politics which is too adversarial and not consensual enough, that it excludes smaller parties from power permanently and creates an ‘elective dictatorship’ where the executive is seen as over‐powerful.

The most critical assessment is that the system distorts representation in the House of Commons. Parties (Labour of late) with concentrated support receive a disproportionately high number of seats, while parties with evenly spread support, such as the Lib Dems, are discriminated against.

Why has proportional representation been more widely used in recent years?

Proportional representation, the concept that voting systems should convert shares of the vote into shares of the seats in legislatures fairly accurately, has become throughout the United Kingdom in recent years. A number of reasons can be used to explain this.



In 1997 a Labour government was elected that in opposition had developed a policy commitment to democratic renewal – indeed this pledge was included in their manifesto of that year. Under Neil Kinnock and John Smith extensive reviews were taken of ways to update Britain’s constitutional arrangements. In 1990 the Labour Party set up the Plant Commission to review the election system, and it reported back with the recommendation that first past the post be scrapped, though the panel stopped short of proposing a move to a proportional system. Tony Blair, who was not a man given over to deep thinking about the workings of the constitution, inherited a party that, with a push from groups such as Charter88, was committed to reforming the architecture of British government. Electoral reform therefore formed part of a more general commitment.

According to Vernon Bogdanor the Additional Member System was introduced as a means of containing the threat of the Scottish National Party. The Scots Nats have long been considered as a major electoral threat by the Labour leadership, and many within the party were mindful of the fact that the SNP’s high levels of concentrated support sees them to do quite well out of first past the post. People such as Smith and Gordon Brown feared that Labour would endure long spells of SNP government and a proportional system therefore would not allow the SNP a large majority. And so it has proved. Since 2007 the SNP have governed, but as a minority administration only. Others have stated that the commitment to PR for the Scottish Parliament can be traced back to the convention on the proposed new assembly in 1987, a time when Labour were worried they could never win another election under FPTP. Therefore, a proposal for a new assembly written today, might come up with a recommendation for retaining FPTP.

The Single Transferable Vote has been used in Northern Ireland since it guards against the threat that politics in the province would be dominated by one side of the community. In this way it is intended to provide a peaceful solution to the problems caused by Nationalist and Unionist divides. STV allows a great deal of choice not only between camps but also within them, allowing voters to be represented fairly.

STV has been in place in Scottish local elections since 2007, largely due to the fact that it was the bargaining chip used by the Liberal Democrats when negotiating the conditions of the 2003‐07 governing coalition with Labour. The Lib Dems had been long term advocates of STV.

The Party List has been introduced for the election of MEPs from the British mainland in order to bring the country into line with the rest of Europe. Since the Treaty of Rome, it has been an objective that the European Parliament contains members who were elected under similar conditions and Britain since 1973 has been party to the Rome Treaty. Internal Labour Party politics are said to have played a part in the choice of the closed party list system. Matt Cole writes that one Labour MP thought Jack Straw, a long term supporter of FPTP, settled on the closed party list in a cynical attempt to discredit PR. Others have said that it was a deal brokered, back of the envelope style, between Tony Blair and Paddy Ashdown in the late 1990s.

Therefore there are a number of disparate reasons for PR’s introduction. Britain’s use of a record number of different electoral systems can charitably be explained as pragmatic responses to particular problems, while cynics would view this outcome as a natural consequence of the muddled and haphazard thinking that has characterised recent reforms to the British constitution.



How do elections promote democracy?

It is crucial that government is carried on with the consent of the people and elections ensure government by consent. They therefore effectively reinforce general consent to the democratic system. If there were no elections there would be no way of guaranteeing popular consent.

It is also vital to democracy that government is accountable to the people. Regular elections enable to people to call governments to account and remove them if necessary. As with the point above, without elections government would not be accountable and so would be able to act beyond its authority and might abuse its mandate.

Elections are the key opportunity for citizens to participate in the democratic process. Such participation can underpin consent and can help to ensure popular obedience to elected government.

Elections are a means by which the people can choose freely between different political programmes and be directly involved in the political process.

Elections can provide a means by which suitable candidates are chosen to hold office or to be representatives in elected assemblies.

What is the impact of proportional representation in Britain?

PR operates in Northern Ireland (STV), in Scotland, Wales and London (AMS) and the regional list system operates for elections to the European Parliament.

The impact varies according to place and the system used.

In Northern Ireland STV results in a multi party outcome with five of the larger parties all achieving significant representation in the assembly and therefore being awarded places in a power sharing government.

STV also allows a number of independent candidates to be elected.

AMS produces a roughly proportional result. Smaller parties have done well, especially in Scotland with the Greens and Scottish Socialists winning significant seats.

In both Scotland and Wales there has been either coalition or minority governments because AMS does not deliver absolute majorities for the large parties. It has also been beneficial to the nationalist parties and the Scottish nationalists have governed Scotland since 2007 as a minority government but with most seats in the Scottish Parliament.

The list system operating for the European Parliament elections has meant a very proportional result with several small parties winning seats, notably the Greens and UKIP. More recently they also won 2 seats at Euro 2009. The same is true of the Greater London Assembly, where the BNP won a seat for the first time above local level in 2008.

In summary the use of PR has changed the party system in various parts of the UK and has resulted in examples of coalition and minority governments.

Explain the operation of any two (or three) electoral systems used in the UK

See the explanations above under basic concepts and select two or three of the electoral systems to describe. Note, of course, that AV is not in place.



Part (c) questions

To what extent do elections promote democracy?

The following points could be seen as ways in elections can promote democracy.

Clearly they are the ultimate expression of the popular will apart from referendums. In a representative system they are the occasion when the people are able to show a preference between different candidates, parties and political programmes or ideologies. They are also the opportunity for the people to express their approval or disapproval of the outgoing government’s performance in office. It is more direct than other measures of public opinion.

Elections are vital to democracy because they force governments to be accountable to the people. Governments are accountable continuously to Parliament, but they also control Parliament because they have a majority in the Commons. The people, on the other hand, are independent of government.

Elections satisfy the democratic need for government by consent. They ensure the peaceful transition of power and grant democratic, elective authority to the winning party. Democracy requires that those who have lost an election accept the authority of those who have won. In other words they can be said to reinforce democratic consent.

A democracy requires a well informed citizenry. Elections and the campaigns that precede them have an important educative function by informing citizens about political issues and the alternatives that are available.

Elections are the key device by which suitable representatives are chosen. Representatives are vital to the working of democracy. This applies to other levels of election – European, devolved and local.

Elections are, for many people, the only way in which people can participate in politics. Participation is also important in maintaining a healthy democracy and also reinforce consent.

The following points could be seen as ways in which elections may not promote democracy.

The doctrine of the mandate has problems. At general elections it is accepted that the winning party has a mandate to carry out the whole of its manifesto. However, elections do not indicate which elements of a manifesto the voters approve of. In other words the electoral mandate is a blunt instrument which restricts democratic choices

Elections in Britain limit democratic choice. Voters have very little say in which candidates are selected (i.e. until Totnes in 2009, there are were no US style primaries or dual ballots or cross‐party preferences) and so have to accept a choice of candidates determined by small party committees. They also cannot demonstrate second or subsequent preferences.

Similarly general elections in Britain can be seen as undemocratic because they produce a distorted result because of the peculiarities of first past the post. The system also means that votes are of unequal value effectively. Democracy requires equal voting rights but, in practice, many votes are wasted – those who support potential winning parties in marginal seats have votes of greater value than those who support small parties or are voting in safe seats.

In the age of consensus politics it could be said that the choices presented at elections are largely an illusion because there are so few differences between the main parties. Democracy in Britain today is much more a case of pluralist group politics than party politics.



Does the outcome of the 2010 election strengthen or weaken the case for adopting proportional representation for general elections?

The following can be seen as arguments in favour of adopting proportional representation for general elections.

PR would produce fairer results since it could convert a share of the vote equally into a share of the seats. Currently fptp does not do this. Traditionally fptp benefited the winning party and a small swing towards either Labour or the Tories saw them rewarded with quite a large increase in the number of seats. However, the system is now biased in favour of the Labour party. The Tories intend to equalise constituency sizes and reduce the number of MPs to correct this imbalance, but this is only shifting the deckchairs on the Titanic. Why not accept that fptp is no longer suitable for three party politics and introduce a system that is fair to all parties?

According to campaigners, the introduction of PR for Westminster would bring to an end the system of ‘disproportionate representation’ we have at present under fptp. In 2010 the Lib Dems received only 6% less than Labour of the national vote, but less than a quarter of the seats. A system of PR would end this discrimination. Moreover, many other parties with evenly spread support also suffered. UKIP, for instance, gained nearly one million votes but were not rewarded with a single MP. This lack of representation would be corrected with PR and surely this is the strongest argument in favour if millions of people do not get the MP they voted for.

Turnout revived somewhat in the 2010 election, but the figure of 65% remains one of the worst in history. Opponents of the fptp system would argue that the inherent faults within the system depress turnout and because PR would mean all votes count then people would be more inclined to vote.

Supporters of proportional electoral systems argue that fewer votes are wasted than under the current system. Under fptp many of the votes cast do not matter since they go towards a candidate other than the winner, or they are surplus to the number needed to elect the winner. In 2010 only around one third of the votes cast contributed to the election of a candidate, with the rest being wasted votes.

Supporters of PR argue that the AV proposal backed by Labour and offered by the Tories is not much better than the current system, and is a pointless change. As the journalist Nick Cohen has pointed out, this is a system abandoned by post‐colonial Papua New Guinea. It is unproportional, as it does little to benefit parties with evenly spread support. The Lib Dems, for instance, would have gained only an additional 20 MPs under AV at the last election despite gaining nearly a quarter of the nation’s vote. AV, therefore, is little fairer than fptp so a PR based system is the only change worth making.

At the onset of the campaign, the names of the most likely winners in 383 safe seats were published by, among others, the ERS. 380 were called correctly. Supporters of PR called these victories an affront to democracy. This means that for well over half of the entire electorate there was no real contest in the constituencies they voted in. The introduction of PR would end this.

On a related point, what pro‐PR campaigners call ‘safe seat syndrome’ means that turnout is likely to be lowest in the safest seats, and highest where the votes is likely to be close. This is borne out by evidence from the 2010 election where the turnout in the 10 most marginal



seats nearly 20% higher than in the 10 safest seats. A proportional electoral system, it is argued, would reduce or eliminate the problem of safe seats.

Only a tiny percentage of the electorate have the power to influence the outcome of the General Election. According to the Electoral Reform Society the 2010 poll could have turned on the basis of less than 20,000 voters in marginal constituencies. Many areas of Britain were campaign free zones in 2010 and PR would make politicians campaign the entire length and breadth of the country.

The current system for Westminster elections is said to lead to the under‐representation of women. Currently only 20% of MPs in the House of Commons are women, and there is strong evidence to suggest that systems that are proportional lead to a fairer representation of women within a UK framework. PR has helped give the Welsh Assembly 47% women. Better gender representation is better for democracy.

In conclusion it is clear that, as the ERS argue, “in a modern democracy fairness, accountability and a real choice for voters should not be compromised.” At all levels of representation an electoral system like STV, which whilst not perfect, does the best job of guaranteeing: “votes have equal value; effective representation to all significant points of view within the electorate; electors being able to vote for their preferred candidates without fear of wasting their votes.”

The following can be seen as arguments that the adoption of proportional representation for general elections remains as weak as it was before the 2010 poll

fptp has historically been simple, familiar, quick to count, and most of the time produces a clear and decisive result. Many of the alternatives are seen as complicated. STV, for example, which is favoured by the Lib Dems, uses a complex formula and this could confuse voters, and the result can take a long time. Election 2010 was the exception and should not be seen as a permanent problem of our system.

fptp stops extremist parties gaining seats. Figures show that the BNP would have picked up around 8 seats in 2010 if PR had been used. Instead they have nothing. This is good for stable democracy, say traditionalists.

There is usually no need for coalitions since the natural mechanics of the system produces single party governments with (in recent times often large) overall majorities. This avoids the need for wrangling amongst coalition partners over what policies are to be introduced – usually behind closed doors, and in smoke‐filled rooms. One of the probable outcomes of introducing PR is that the Lib Dems would hold the balance of power as they did this year. This can be seen as unfair since they are only the third biggest party.

Single rather than multi‐party government fosters stability within the political system. Opponents of PR argue that coalitions are prone to breakdown when one of the partners becomes dissatisfied with the government’s direction. Sticking with fptp is the best way of avoiding a coalition government in the future.

fptp allows voters to decide who their representatives are. We need to appreciate also the special link between an individual MP and his or her constituency and this link can be lost with different systems which use much larger geographic areas for constituencies and/or are multi‐member.

One of the key arguments in favour of proportional electoral systems, that it would boost turnout, has not been supported by figures from the elections where different systems have been used for the same elected body. Indeed, participation has been a disappointment. The



introduction of the Party List system for European Parliament elections did little for turnout, with the percentage of the electorate voting falling by a third between 1994 and 1999.

Assess the arguments for retaining first past the post for general elections

The following points could be used as arguments in favour of retaining first past the post with, in each case, a critique of or counter‐argument to the point

It is a tried and tested system with a certain amount of public acceptance. It is also simple and easy for people to understand. This can be countered by the argument that tradition should not play a part when politics is constantly evolving. Arguably, too, the system no longer works as turnouts are falling and there is disillusionment with party and parliamentary politics. Other than the USA, most developed modern democracies do not use first past the post which suggests it is not considered democratic.

The close relationship between MPs and constituencies is a vital feature of the current system. MPs have a close relationship with constituents, meet them regularly at ‘surgeries’, represent their concerns in Parliament and deal with their grievances against government and other public bodies. This, it is argued, is worth preserving. There is little to counter this argument except to say that one alternative – STV – does give constituents a choice of several members to represent them as the system uses multi‐member constituencies. It could also be argued that, because most MPs do not achieve an overall majority in their elections, they are not truly representatives of opinion in their constituency.

First past the post delivers strong, single party government with a clear electoral mandate. This has been almost always the case since 1945. Supporters say this is democratic because of the clear mandate and the accountability it brings. The two party, adversarial system that it promotes is also supportable on the grounds that the electorate are presented with clear alternatives. Furthermore it creates stability and supporters of the current system point to other systems which use PR and which have been highly unstable, notably Ireland, Holland and Belgium. This view can be criticised on the grounds that two party politics is not healthy, that it restricts choice, creates an unrepresentative duopoly and, above all, that the delivery of large majorities in the House of Commons places too much power in the hands of the executive which is insufficiently balanced by parliamentary weakness.

First past the post has the effect of keeping out small, extremist parties by discriminating against them. Thus, parties of the far left (various communist groups) or the far right (BNP) have been denied the oxygen of parliamentary representation. To counter this opponents say that it also discriminates against moderate small parties who do represent legitimate causes and philosophies. The Green Party is a clear example of this (notwithstanding their breakthrough in Brighton in May 2010), as have been parties opposing British membership of the EU, such as UKIP.



First past the post presents a clear choice for voters but this can be seen as a device for maintaining control over who is elected. The selection of candidates is in the hands of small, unaccountable party committees. Alternatives such as STV and open list systems do give greater choice for constituents, allowing them to discriminate between candidates of the same party.

Analyse the likely effects of the introduction of proportional representation in general elections

The following are likely consequences of the introduction of PR together with analysis of those effects.

The most likely consequence is that the duopoly of the two main parties will be broken. This would certainly be true if STV or a list system were used and would probably occur under AMS. This would clearly result in smaller parties, especially the Lib Dems, gaining more representation and the opportunity to share in coalition government. It might also encourage the creation of successful new parties who would have the prospect of winning significant representation quickly. Britain has a long history of new parties failing to make an impact because of the electoral system. The Greens and UKIP are good examples. The story of the SDP is also interesting. The Social Democrat Party broke away from Labour in 1981. Although it won considerable support in the elections of 1983 and 1987, reaching almost 25% of the vote, the new party won only a handful of seats in Parliament and so was forced to join with the Liberals in 1988.

The destruction of the two party duopoly would probably lead to more coalition governments, as has occurred in Scotland and Wales. Coalitions, as we have seen since May 2010, can be supported or opposed. Supporters say they introduce healthy consensus politics, create more continuity and represent a wider spectrum of political opinion. Opponents say it would lead to unstable government run by coalitions without a clear electoral mandate.

PR might also lead to minority governments because no party would be able to win an overall majority in the House of Commons. This seems to be a major drawback as instability would become common, with frequent elections and no continuity. Italy has suffered from such instability since world war two. Some say it would be workable with consensus being built on individual issues and governments would be prevented from becoming unaccountable and over‐powerful, and that problems in Italian politics run deeper than their choice of electoral system!

PR increases voter choice and creates more equality among voters. It also would reflect voter opinion more accurately. There would be less wasted votes and more choice whichever PR system were to be used. Arguably this might reduce current public disillusionment with party politics and might have a positive impact on turnouts.

It has to be said that different systems would have different effects. STV, offering multi member constituencies and widen voter choice, would result in a multi party system, with perhaps four or five parties competing for power. It would also result in the election of more



independents if the experience of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland were repeated in Britain. AMS (a hybrid system, only partly PR), would probably lead to less parties becoming successful and it is likely that two parties would still dominate without their being able to form single party governments. A party list system, the most proportional of all, might result in a very fluid system with perhaps even six or more parties gaining significant numbers of seats in Parliament. It could be argued that this would result in the most instability.

Assess the prospects of proportional representation being introduced for Westminster elections.

With the Liberal Democrats, long‐time advocates of a PR based system for the House of Commons, some suggest the prospects of change are greater than ever. But this is not necessarily the case.

For reform to the election system for the House of Commons a whole host of factors would still need to be in place – much like the alignment of the stars – in a very similar fashion to the creation of the new coalition government. Here we look at each factor in turn.

Opinion polls of public support indicate the people are broadly in favour of introducing a system of PR for Westminster. But despite it assuming a higher profile as a consequence of the MPs’ expenses scandal in the last parliament, it has not become an issue of higher salience. And who can say for certain what the impact of a Yes or No vote on any proposed Alternative Vote would have on public debate?

For this to change we can speculate that more controversial outcomes at future general elections conducted under either under fptp or AV may strengthen public demand for the introduction of PR. If there were to be an another hung Parliament, and discussions between the various party leaders and the monarch about who was to form the government dragged on a lot longer than they did in 2010, this further would weaken the argument about fptp creating strong single party governments, and could hasten calls for PR.

If a future Prime Minister (in single party government, or in the type of coalition we have currently) swung behind electoral reform, then they would still need to achieve Cabinet approval by convincing them that it was a government priority. For all the talk of decline of Cabinet it is an institution which still matters, and it would undoubtedly have an important say on electoral reform. Back in the 1990s Blair, famously, was “not persuaded of the need for reform”, and he knew also that the majority of the Cabinet were against it, so there was little point in pursuing it. Proportional representation is something that cuts across party divisions between Labour and the Tories, therefore only a Lib Dem government, or a coalition with the Lib Dems as dominant partners would make change more likely.

Precedent suggests that a referendum would have to be held and won on electoral reform, as was the case on devolution, promises on the euro, and the AV vote proposal. A referendum campaign may see public opinion shift against reform depending on what major party figures campaigned on which side, and we could speculate that the major newspapers could have some influence. Further, doubt could be cast on the result if only a small majority voted in favour on a low turnout ‐ since this would suggest that the result lacked legitimacy. As referendums remain non‐binding, and MPs could well disregard the outcome. An

Documents

Edexcel AS Politics ExamBuster 2009 - tutor2u · Edexcel AS Politics ExamBuster Tutor2u Limited Page 36 Elections Introductory concepts ‐ the typical subject of part (a) questions