week 4 – does the electoral system for westminster need reforming?
DESCRIPTION
WEEK 4 – DOES THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM FOR WESTMINSTER NEED REFORMING?. POLITICAL POWER IN A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. European Union. EUROPEAN UNION. EXECUTIVE (PRIME MINISTER/CABINET). Parliament. Political parties. REPRESENTATIVE (MP OR PARTY). Electoral system. VOTER. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
WEEK 4 – DOES THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM FOR WESTMINSTER NEED REFORMING?
2
VOTER
REPRESENTATIVE(MP OR PARTY)
EXECUTIVE (PRIME MINISTER/CABINET)
EUROPEAN UNION
POLITICAL POWER IN A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
Electoral system
Political parties
Parliament
European Union
3
WHY STUDY ELECTORAL SYSTEMS?
House of Commons, 2005
Labour: 35% of vote 55% of seats
Government: Labour
Scottish Parliament, 2007
Labour: 31% of vote 36% of seats
Government: SNP
Result: Breakup of Britain?
4
KEY QUESTIONS
o What are the effects of the current electoral system for Westminster? What would be the effects of changing the electoral system?
o Would such a move enhance or weaken democracy?
o Why has the Westminster electoral system come under attack recently?
5
ELECTORAL CONSTITUENCIES: WESTMINSTER
6
ELECTORAL CONSTITUENCIES: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
7
PLURALITY ELECTORAL OUTCOME
Votes %
Sir R Johnston (LD) 13 258 26.0
D Stewart (Lab) 12 800 25.1
F Ewing (SNP) 12 562 24.7
J Scott (Con) 11 517 22.6
J Martin (Green) 766 1.5
8Source: Farrell (2001) Table 2.1
PLURALITY ELECTORAL OUTCOME, 2010
>50% of vote40-50%30-40%<30%
Proportion of MPs gaining majority and minority man-dates:
9Source: Electoral Reform Society
ELECTORAL (DIS)PROPORTIONALITY, 2005
Share of vote Share of seats
10Source: House of Commons Library
Labour
Conservative Other
Liberal Democrat
ELECTORAL (DIS)PROPORTIONALITY, 2010
Share of vote Share of seats
11Source: House of Commons Library
Labour
Conservative Other
Liberal Democrat
ELECTORAL DISPROPORTIONALITY, 1945-2010
1945
1950
1951
1955
1959
1964
1966
1970
1974
1974
1979
1983
1987
1992
1997
2001
2005
2010
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
VotesSeatsBonus
% fo
r win
ning
par
ty
12Source: House of Commons Library
ELECTORAL ‘DESERTS’
13
North East, 2005Conservatives/Lib Democrats
Votes: 43% Seats: 7%
Wales, 2001Conservatives
Votes: 21% Seats: 0%
Scotland, 1997Conservatives
Votes: 18% Seats: 0%
Eastern, 2010Labour
Votes: 20% Seats: 3%
OUTCOMES UNDER DIFFERENT ELECTORAL SYSTEMS: PARTIES
Con
Lab
LD Green
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Seat
s (%
)
Con
Lab
LD Green
UKIP
BNP
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Seat
s (%
)
14Source: House of Commons Library
General election, England (2010)
European Parliament election, England (2009)
OUTCOMES UNDER DIFFERENT ELECTORAL SYSTEMS: GOVERNMENT
West
minster 1
997
Scotla
nd 1999
Wale
s 1999
West
minster 2
001
Scotla
nd 2003
Wale
s 2003
West
minster 2
005
Scotla
nd 2007
Wale
s 2007
West
minster 2
0100
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Vote
shar
e (%
)
15Source: House of Commons Library
CONSEQUENCES OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
Single member plurality
o Candidates often win on plurality of vote
o Bonus of seats to leading party (‘winner’s bonus’)
o Disproportionalo Electoral ‘deserts’
Proportional representation
o More winners in each constituency
o Nationally, seat share close to vote share
ie. Proportionalo Winning party often lacks
majority of seatso Coalition government?
16
17
THE FUNCTION OF ELECTIONS
Majoritarian
o Elections are means of selecting/controlling a government
o Requires two party system- Decisiveness hindered
with multiple parties
o Clear link between voters’ wishes and government outcome
o Prime quality of elections = accountability
Proportional
o Elections are means of choosing a representative outcome
o Requires multi-party system+ proportional electoral system
o Governments arise through bargaining within representative legislature
o Prime quality of elections = representation
18
Campaign for Democracy
Dear Mr Blair
I believe that the result of this month's election, in which your government was elected with a 67-seat majority on 36% of the popular vote and with the support of 22% of the electorate, is a subversion of our democracy.
I call on you, in your final term as Prime Minister, to institute urgent reform of our voting system so that the British people are encouraged to believe that their votes count and that the result of a general election is more representative of their wishes
(10th May 2005)
GOVERNING PARTY SHARE OF VOTE, 1945-2010
1945
1950
1951
1955
1959
1964
1966
1970
1974
1974
1979
1983
1987
1992
1997
2001
2005
2010
20
30
40
50
60
%
19Source: House of Commons Library
EVALUATING ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
“… elections serve a number of different functions, and there are different democratic criteria against which they can be evaluated. Not all these functions or criteria are entirely compatible with one another. It follows, therefore, that there is no one self-evidently ‘best’ electoral system from a democratic point of view; it will be a question of making the most defensible trade-off between a number of possible considerations.”
Beetham, ‘How Should We Vote?’20