Comparing Electoral Processes in Uk

The AMS and FPTP are voting systems in use for the Scottish Parliament and House of Commons elections respectively. It can be argued that AMS gives voters more choice and better representation than FPTP, and in order to assess the validity of this argument 3 key indicators must be analysed: constituency links; proportionality and representation of smaller parties.

However the government is held to account by the British public in general elections because the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system favours the two party

The second reason why FPTP should not be used for elections to the House of Commons is that it is not representative, meaning that the percentage share of votes is not proportional to the percentage share of seats, because of single member constituencies. This is a weakness as it means that there is not a fair level of representation within the House of Commons, which makes the system less democratic as not everybody’s views are entirely represented in Parliament. For example, in the 2010 general elections, the Conservative party won 36% of votes, but a staggering 47.1% of seats, whilst UKIP gained 3.1% of votes, but 0% of seats, indicating the tendency of FPTP to radically distort the relationship between votes and seats. Due to the fact that FPTP is a plurality system, rather than a majoritarian one, MPs can win the seat by as little as 1 vote, meaning that

AMS gives more choice than FPTP. In AMS you get 2 votes one for your regional list MSP for example a regional area us Lothian and 1 vote for your constituency MSP for example Edinburgh West is a constituency. For Example Colin Keir was elected the MSP for Edinburgh West and he serves as our local MSP and a regional list MSP is Margo McDonald for Lothian’s along with 7 other regional MSPs. However in most cases your regional list MSP is not elected directly by the voter as if the party gets a percentage of the votes the party can pick a representative from the list and people will not get to pick them thus not being representative of people’s views giving power to the party not its people.

Furthermore, Additional Member system leads to different outcomes as it’s a proportional system which means the proportion of seats won by the candidates and the votes they received are proportional. For example in Scotland in 2007 the SNP received 31% of the votes and won 47 seats and Labour won 29.2% of the votes and won 46 seats. This means that often political parties are rewarded with a fair share of the seats for the votes they obtained, also in AMS the outcome is made more proportional by its constituency list top up, thus making it easier for third party candidates to make a inroad into politics. Thus AMS produces different outcomes to other electoral systems due its hybrid nature, where it combines F-P-T-P voting system with closed list system.

Basically, voters select one candidate from their riding, just like in an SMP system, but they also place a vote for which party they would like to form the government. This second vote determines the amount of seats that each party gains proportional to the amount of votes they collected in the countries. The representatives from each party are then made up of the elected representatives from each riding (if that party was able to elect any) and other members selected by the leader1. An STV system, which is what the Citizen’s Assembly recommended to the people of BC, can be found in Ireland, Malta, and in some levels of government in Australia. Voters rank candidates according to their priorities, choosing as many as they wish. For example, a certain voter could select a Conservative as his or her first choice, a Liberal as the second, a New Democrat as third, and then cast no votes for the Green Party. When each a candidate reaches a certain quota of first place votes, they are elected, and the extra first place votes that they did not need are distributed to the other parties according to their overall ranking. If a second candidate is then elected, his or her extra votes are then distributed to the remaining parties, and so on . This system is rather complicated, especially when compared to our current system, but computerized voting systems have generally alleviated any problems.

Westminster is the location of the Houses of Parliament, where the majority of political decisions (other than those for devolved states) are made for the nation. The current Westminster electoral system is First Past the Post (FPTP) which is used for general elections every 5 years (due to the new fixed-term parliaments brought in by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.) The FPTP system is constituency based, each person votes for a representative for their constituency and whichever party wins the most constituencies gains governmental power. First Past the Post works on the basis of a plurality of votes, that is, that the winning party need only gain the most votes out of all parties to gain power, they do not need an overall

Canadian electoral system is largely based on the single member plurality (SMP) system which was inherited from its former British colonial masters. The system dates back to several years before the formation of the Canadian confederation. Some of the common features of the Canadian electoral system include election candidates to represent designated geographical areas popularly known as” ridings”, counting and tallying of the votes casted on the basis of the districts as opposed to the parties of the candidates (Dyck, 622). Finally, a candidate only needs a simple majority over the other candidates in order to be considered a winner, even if the winner has a small percentage of votes. This system has however been heavily criticized for its winner takes all way of judging victory. Critics argue that if the winner takes over the whole system, it may result into unfair representation of the various social groups, but it may also bring into power unstable minority participation in government. For example, a candidate can win even with barely 25% of all the votes casted, while the small parties may end up with no seats in the parliament.

The (FPTP) system is also known as the 'winner-take-all' system, in which the candidate with the most votes gets elected. FPTP voting methods can be used for single and multiple member elections. In a single member election the candidate with the highest number, not necessarily a majority, of votes is elected.

The system that the Law Commission ultimately recommended was the mixed-member proportional electoral system. In the MMP system a portion of representatives, usually between 50 and 60 percent, are elected from single-member districts, similar to FPTP, with the remainder of seats being elected from party lists, based on the party’s share of the popular vote (Law Commission 22). Each voter gets to cast two votes, one for the party that they support and another for the representative member that they prefer. Party lists can be either closed, where voters are not able to influence the order of candidates, or open, where voters have the ability to influence the ranking of candidates. A threshold for representation is usually set in order to prevent fringe and extremist parties from gaining seats in government. This system is used in Germany, New Zealand, Venezuela and Lesotho (Joseph 113).

The Single Transferable Vote system is a system that was invented by a mathematician whose processes are lengthy and confusing to the people who actually use it to implement change: voters. The currently used Single Member Plurality system is widely understood and the best system for Manitoban voters. While some may argue that the Single Transferrable Vote system is a superior method of electing members of government in Manitoba, due to the unfamiliarity with candidates, lack of voter involvement, and confusing nature of the system, the current Single Member Plurality system is more effective and reflective of the actual views of the electors.

In the United Kingdom we use the FPTP (First past the post) system for the election of MP’s for seats in Parliament or to vote for British Prime Ministers. The UK is divided into 650 constituencies and in the constituencies are run by their local government parties. For example, the Gower constituency is run by the Labour party and the all of the Yorkshire constituencies are run by the Conservative party. The ballots are held in public buildings accessible by anyone in the local constituencies like community buildings or townhalls. In them buildings hold secluded voting areas where you can vote privately; in them areas are ballot boxes and ballot paper. At an election voters put a cross (X) next to their preferred

I believe that we need to make major adjustments to UK elections for them to be fairer. This must include changes to our voting system which is First Past The Post, a system where electors vote for their first choice candidate and those with the most votes win the election in that constituency. I think this because the current voting system isn’t fair, in the 2015 elections the Conservatives won but just because they got more seats than any party needed to win they didn’t get 50% of the vote BBC news*1 stated that they only got 36.9% which means to me they shouldn’t have actually won. Also with FPTP many votes are wasted because people disagree with the system and don’t think there’s any purpose in voting. I think that an alternative voting system would be a much fairer way to choose who is elected. From a school worksheet it stated that in 2005 66% of all MP’s elected did not get over 50% no party has won a majority since 1935 *2. An alternative voting system is where the system asks voters to rank candidates in order of preference. People can nominate as many preferences as they like. Only first preference votes are counted. Anyone getting more than 50% of these votes is elected automatically of the votes in their constituency. This should be our new voting system because it gives people a chance to vote for who they actually want and may make them become more encouraged to vote.

is the winner. PR systems tend to be more complex and are not as easy

The number of seats a province is given in Parliament is established based on the population of the province. Voters are then divided into constituencies, also known as electoral boundaries, ridings, or districts. In order to win, candidates must get a highest amount of votes than any other competitor within the same electoral boundary. This means that if candidate A receives 41% of the votes, while candidate B gets 39% and candidate C 20%, candidate A becomes the winner of the election and gains a seat in Parliament. Note that 59% of the electorate opposed candidate A.