Elections and Voting

• Universal adult suffrage
• One person, one vote
• The secret ballot
• Competition between candidates and parties 

General elections 

• Full parliamentary elections, seats in HofC up for reelection (Westminster), five year terms 

Devolved assembly elections 

• Scottish Parl, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assembly, four year terms 

European Parliament elections 

• Five year terms, first held in 1979

Local elections 

• District, borough and county council elections, Greater London Assembly, Lord Mayor, 4/5 year terms 

Forming Governments 

• Transfer powers from one govt to the next in general election
• Formed from leading members of the majority party in the HofC
• HOWEVER
• PR systems = less likely to produce single party govt
• — govt therefore formed through negotiation 

Ensuring Representation 

• Elections = vital channel of communication between govt and the people 
• Carry out representative function 
• — politicians and their constituency 
• — govt and public opinion
• Give people final control 
• HOWEVER
• 4/5 year terms weaken link between voters and representatives 
• Debate as to how politicians should represent their electors - which system? 

Uphold Legitimacy 

• Legitimacy provides the key to political stability 
• Ensures citizens see they must obey the law and respect govt 
• Voting fives govt ‘consent’ to be able to govern
• HOWEVER
• Low turnout level
• Failing support for Lab and Cons = declining satisfaction

Trusteeship 

• Politicians should be trustees (think for themselves), not delegates (recall views of others without their own input)
• Because the mass of people may not know their own best interests
• HOWEVER
• Politicians thinking for themselves creates a gap between them and the citizens (politicians may think for their own middle aged white men views)
• — this could be stopped by shortening terms 
• Trusteeship is outdated, it can only be done with ‘free votes’ so they vote independently, or backbench votes

Descriptive Representation 

• Representatives should resemble the group they represent proportional e.g. social class, age, gender, religion, ethnicity etc. 
• Helps stop under representation for minorities 
• HOWEVER
• No broader public interest if groups are narrow and exclusive
• Govt would reflect society’s weakness e.g. uneducated
• Representation can’t be reconciled with electoral choice 

The Doctrine of the Mandate 

• A party wins, they carry out their policies on their manifesto
• The whole party (not individuals) carries out representation
• Politicians don’t think for themselves, they stay loyal to their policies 
• HOWEVER
• People don’t vote rationally/based on their manifesto
• Most people won’t support every policy in a manifesto
• Govt can’t be forced to carry out their manifesto commitments and they often include /vite winning/ policies that they never do 
• Is the mandate for the party or PM? PMs sometimes take a personal mandate 
• Coalitions can’t do all of both party’s policies, so many will be abandoned 

• Proportional system = represents parties in line with their electoral support - proportional representation
• Non proportional system = tends to over represent larger parties and usually results in a single party majority 

 First past the post 

• Also known as Westminster voting system or single member plurality system)
• Used in HofC and England and Wales local govts 
• Most votes win
• Has the several implications:

Disproportionality 

• FPTP doesn’t establish links between the proportion of votes won by a party and the proportion of seats they get, bc the system is concerned with an election of individual members, not parties 
• The ‘wrong’ part could with if
• — Constituency 1

                                 2

                                 3

Systematic biases

• Disproportionality isn’t random, some parties do well in FPTP elections and others don’t
• There are 2 kinds of bias: size of the party and distribution of support 
• Size of the party 
• — Large parties benefit at the expense of small parties because:
• — The ‘winner takes it all’ effect means 100% of representation is gained in each constituency by a single candidate and therefore by a single party 
• — Winning candidates are likely to come from large parties as they’re likely to be FPTP
• — Candidates from small parties that come 3rd/4th etc gain no representation for their party 
• — Voters are discouraged from supporting small parties as they’re unlikely to get a seat 
• — wasted vote = a vote that doesn’t affect the outcome of the election bc its cast for a ‘losing’ candidate who already has a plurality of votes 
• Distribution of support 
• — Parties whose support is geographically concentrated do better than ones with evenly distributed support 
• — concentrated = more effective -  more likely to gain pluralities and win seats
• — where they aren’t winning seats they’re wasting less votes
• — However they come 2nd or 3rd almost everywhere so get few/no seats 
• Lab and Cons over represented by FPTP - big, geo concentrated support due to the class of their voters , Lib Dems = smaller party and less class based voters and geo evenly spread out, SNP and Plaid Cymru = small parties, disadvantage is counter balanced by geo concentrated support

Two party system 

• FPTP results in two major parties - Lab and Cons since WW1 
• Only 2 parties have sufficient support to have a realistic chance of winning the election 
• Due to the bias above 
• ‘2 horse race’ may discourage potential supporters of ‘third’ parties from voting for them - wasted votes
• Problem of wasted votes is all greater bc Lab and Cons each have ‘heartlands’ where most seats are ‘safe’ seats 
• Outcome of election is therefore determined by what happens in a minority of seats (marginal seats - a sear or constituency with a small majority which is therefore ‘winnable’ by multiple parties)

Single party government 

• Consequence of 2 party system = the larger of the two majority parties usually wins enough support to govern alone 
• Other major party forms opposition and acts as a government in waiting 

Landslide effect

• FPTP tends to produce a ‘winner’s bonus’
• Relatives small shifts in votes can lead to dramatic changes in seats gained 
• — parties can win ‘landslide’ victories on the basis of relatively modest electoral support 

For (disadvantages of FPTP)

• Greater proportionality 
• No wasted votes 
• Guaranteed majority govt 
• No ‘elected dictatorship’ (single party in control of govt)
• More consensus based politics 

Against (advantages of FPTP)

• Clarity and simplicity of choice
• Strong links between a representative and their constituency 
• Manifestos can be adhered to 
• Strong govt 
• Stable govt 

Alternate Vote (AV)

• Rank candidates in order of preference 
• Winning candidates must gain 50% majority 
• If no candidate reaches 50%, the bottom candidate drops out and the votes are redistributed according to second preference 
• Scottish local by-elections, Lib & Lab leadership elections
• By-elections for hereditary peers

Advantages

• Ensures fewer votes are wasted
• Broad range of views influence outcome bc 50% majority 

Disadvantages

• Outcome may be determined by supporters of small/minority/possible extremist parties 
• Winning candidates may have little first preference support 

Supplementary Vote (SV)

• Vote for first and second preference 
• Winning candidates must gain 50% majority 
• Votes according to first preference - if no one reaches 50%, the top 2 candidates remain in the election (the others drop out) and the votes are redistributed 

Advantages

• Simpler than AV, easy to understand for voters
• Focus on second preference encourages conciliatory campaigning and a tendency towards consensus
• London mayoral elections 

Disadvantages

• Doesn’t ensure that winning candidate has 50% of votes (bc proportion of second votes will be for candidates who’ve dropped out)
• Emphasis on making second votes count may encourage voters to only support main parties - discourage them from supporting their second preference 

Additional Member System (AMS)

• Electorate gets 2 votes - one for an individual, decided with FPTP

                                            - one for a party, with seats awarded with the party list system 

• Scottish Parl, Welsh Assembly, Greater London Assembly

Advantages

• The mixed character of AMS balances the need for constituency representation against the need for electoral fairness
• Broadly proportional but still has potential for a single party govt 
• Voters can make more considered choices - vote for different parties in constituencies and elections 

Disadvantages

• Retention of single member constituencies reduces likelihood of high levels of proportionality 
• Confusing bc two classes of representation 
• Constituency representation less effective than FPTP bc larger size of constituencies and bc a proportion of representatives have no constituency duties 

Single Transferable Vote (STV)

• Multimember constituencies 
• Can vote for multiple candidates 
• Must reach a quota to be elected = (total no. of votes cast/(no. of seats to be filled +1)) + 1
• Candidate with fewest votes drops out, votes redistributed 
• N Ireland Assembly, N Ireland and Scot local govt, N Ireland for Euro Parl 

Advantages

• Can achieve highly proportional outcomes 
• Competition between candidates if they’re in the same party - judged on individual strengths 
• Availability of several members - constituents can choose who to take their grievances to 

Disadvantages

• Degree of proportionality can vary (on the basis of party system)
• Strong/stable single party govt is unlikely 
• Multimember’s constituencies may be divisive bc they encourager competition amongst members of the same party 

Regional Party List 

• Party gives a list of their candidates in order of their preference
• Electorate votes for a party not candidates 
• Parties allocate starts in proportion to votes gained in each constituency
• European Parliament 

Advantages

• Only potentially pure system of proportional representation 
• Promotes unity by encouraging electorate to identify with a region rather than a constituency 
• Women and minorities more likely to be on party list and therefore elected 

Disadvantages

• Existence of small parties can lead to weak/unstable govt
• Link between representatives and constituencies is weakened/could be broken 
• Parties became more powerful, as they decide where candidates are placed on the party list 

Greater Proportionality

• Over representation of large parties and landslide effect of FPTP are reduced
• 2011 Scottish Parl elections - Labour won half the constituency seats with 32% of the vote and its overall representation in Scot Parl was ‘corrected’ by distribution of part list seats - 29% of seats 

Multiparty systems

• Minor parties more likely to win seats in proportional systems 
• — broadens basis of party representation and creates multiparty system
• Until 2010, Green Party had no representation at Westminster despite gaining over 250,000 votes 
• — Green represented in Scot Parl (2 seats), GL Assembly (2) and Euro Parl (£)

Coalition or Minority Government 

• Minority govt = govt with no overall majority support in the assembly/Parl
• — usually formed by single parties that can’t/won’t form coalitions
• More proportionals voting systems more likely to produce multiparty systems and coalitions/minority govt

Consensus Building

• Shift from single party majority govt to coalition led to different style of policy making (’new politics’) and the adoption of different policies
• FPTP usually gets single party govt that drive policies through HofC
• — other electoral systems foster policy process of compromise, negotiation and a cross party consensus
• — occurs formally through coalitions 
• Coalitions usually based on post-election deals - commitments of 2+ parties
• Consensus building in single party govt to attract informal support from other parties to maintain control of Parl 

• Chance of electoral reform
• Centre parties can’t win under FPTP
• Cons don’t want reform bc they win under FPTP
• Lab supported it until they kept winning under it 
• Prospects for reform linked to possibility of a ‘hung’ Parliament (no single party has a majority)
• Referendum for AV lost
• AV has advantage over FPTP but can’t maintain some of the benefits of FPTP
• Each system is good at different things 

3 theories of voting behaviour:

• Sociological model 
• — People of certain economic or social groups vote for a certain party - places emphasis on long term social factors like social class, gender, ethnicity, religion and region 
• Party Identification model 
• — Emotional attachment to a party, identify with a party as long term supporter - partisanship
• Issue voting model
• — Vote for the party most beneficial to them at the time 

Social class

• Key to understanding voting behaviour until 1970s
• “Class is the basis of British party politics” - Peter Pulzer 1967
• Class alignment (link between class and voting)
• 1964-66 - 64% working class voted Labour, 62% middle class voted Conservative 
• Since 1970s - class dealignment 

Party loyalty 

• 1964-70 - voters identified with a particular party - partisan alignment
• 1964-66 - 90% of voters identified with a party 
• This has declined since 1970s - partisan dealignment 

Gender

• Women tend to vote Cons 
• — less pronounced with Thatcher, but reasserted itself with Major 
• However 1997 - Labour was supported by an equal no. of women and men (44%)
• 2015- men more likely to vote Cons than women expect 50+ year olds 

Age

• Older people tend to vote Cons
• — earn more money as they get older?
• — more fearful of change?
• Younger people tend to vote Labour 

Religion and Ethnicity 

• Church of England vote Cons 
• Non-conformists vote Labour
• POC vote Labour 

Region

• North/South divide
• Labour = London and North
• Cons = South 

Policies

• Parties form policies that will have wide electoral appeal
• Policies may fade when other issues come to dominate a campaign

Performance

• Elections are largely decided on the performance of the govt of the day 
• — its economic performance 

Leaders

• ‘Age of dealignment’ means parties place increasing faith on leaders to win elections 
• Effective leader qualities: accessibility (likeable), trust, and strength 
• Presidentialism 

Party image

• The way voters view the parties is important 
• During 1990s Cons seen as the ‘nasty’ party - get rich quick, show little sympathy for disadvantaged 
• Cameron worked to ‘detoxify’ the party’s image 

Campaigning 

• 2015 - Cons spent £78 million on campaigning  - exceeding all other parties combined 
• Net impact of national campaigning may be less significant than e.g. getting backing of major newspapers 
• Tendency for parties to ‘target’ key seats to artificially concentrate their support 

Tactical voting 

• Voting not for a preferred party but for a ‘least bad’ party or to defeat a ‘worst’ party 
• Keeps unwanted parties out of power 

Proposed solutions:

• Electoral reform
• Digital democracy/e-democracy
• Compulsory voting 

Sociological factors that could impact turnout:

• There’s a clear link between turnout and education
• — people with higher levels of education are more likely to vote than people that are less educated 
• — this should have led to an increase, not decrease in turnout 
• The changing size of the ethnic minority population 
• — voting levels tend to be lower than the wider society 
• — ethnic minority population grown 
• Partisan dealignment 
• Immediate political circumstances in the general elections - little choice in policies/ideas 

For

• Increased participation - participation crisis would be solved
• Greater legitimacy - govts can get a popular majority 
• Civic duty - the more people that participate in policies, the more they’ll think/act as members of a political community 
• Stronger social justice - poor and less educated are less likely to vote so voluntary voting disadvantages them 

Against

• Abuse of freedom - some people show their views by not voting 
• Cosmetic democracy - would only mask issues like a decline in civic engagement 
• Worthless votes - some people would just vote bc they have to and not research
• Distorted political focus - parties may adopt strategies to attract would-be non-voters rather than focus on the interest of the mass