1. ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
AS GOVERNMENT AND
POLITICS

2. Key Questions
1. What is the purpose of elections, do they give
recruitment, legitimacy or accountability?
2. What types of electoral system are there?
3. What results do they give?
4. How do we define the success of these systems?

3. I’ve Got A Confession To Make
I’ve been a bit cheeky with the way I’ve taught this subject. Under
this topic we’re supposed to cover voting systems and impact on
voting behaviour. However you’ll have noticed we’ve already
covered some of the reasons and theories of voting behaviour.
Why?
Because this way you can apply the theory to the practice I’m about
to show you and have some top notch discussions!
(Hopefully)

4. A Strictly Need To Know Basis?
Those lovely people at AQA believe that the following are the most important voting systems
currently in operation.
1. First- Past- The- Post (FPTP)
2. Alternative Vote
3. Supplementary Vote
4. Single Transferable Vote (STV)
5. Additional Member System (AMS)
6. Regional List- Proportional Representation
Not only do we need to know how they work but also were they have been used and the relevant
positives and negatives of each system.

5. Round 1
First Past The Post

6. First Things... Past The Post?
AdamFirst Past The Post (FPTP) is the name
commonly given to the system in the UK
by which citizens elect representatives
to the House of Commons in
Westminster.
Under a FPTP system the country in
question is divided up into areas known
as Constituencies. These areas are
designed to be of similar size in terms of
their inhabitants. (e.g. In the UK the
average size is 70,000 people)
Each Constituency elects one
representative.

7. I've Got The X- Factor!
Under FPTP the winning candidate is the one who gets the most
votes. This is a Simple Plurality. The most obvious example is the UK
Parliamentary Elections. Here are a sample of FPTP At its best and
worst in 2010!
Constituency 1
Conservative- 19,461
Labour- 18,088
Lib Dem- 15, 094
UKIP- 1,624
Green Party- 427
Constituency 2
Conservative- 24,687
Lib Dem- 10,200
Labour- 7,803
Independent- 2,243
Poetry Party- 298
Constituency 3
Lib Dem- 30,896
Conservative- 18,632
Labour- 1,158
UKIP- 801
Constituency 4
Conservative- 17,860
Labour- 17,666
Lib Dem- 8,724
Plaid Cmyru- 1,588
UKIP- 1,530
Constituency 5
Labour- 17,377
Conservative- 15,251
Lib Dem- 5,513
Green Party- 478
BNP- 334
Constituency 6
Green Party- 16,238
Labour- 14,928
Conservative- 12,275
Lib Dem- 7,159

8. Some Odd Facts About FPTP
a1. The smallest majority in the 2010 General
Election was for Michelle Gildernew who won by
only 4 votes!
2. The largest majority in the 2010 General Election
was for Stephen Timms who won by 27,826
votes!
3. The smallest constituency in the UK is Na h-
Eileanan An Iar with 21,884 members.
4. The largest constituency in the UK is the Isle of
Wight with 103,480 members.
5. The highest turnout ever for a General Election
was 83.9% in 1950.
6. The lowest turnout ever for a General Election
was 59.4% in 2001.
7. The biggest ever win was by Labour in 1997 with
418 seats.
8. The first ethnic minority MP was Mancherjee
Bhowanggree in 1895.

9. Hopelessly Advantageous to You!
The following are considered the good points about FPTP. REMEMBER THEM!
1. Simplicity
2. Strong
3. Representative

10. Simple Things For Simple......
Just because people say something is simple doesn’t necessarily make it good or
bad. The question is What is the effect of it being simple?
FPTP- What is the effect of it being simple?
1. Results are obvious- when Michelle is on 21,304 and Rodney is on 21,300 our
clear winner is Michelle. With the other systems it isn’t so obvious at first
glance.
2. Rock and Roll- Once your in, We’re off! You can be in Parliament the next day
for a photo shoot and a cappuccino! (I.e. Get straight to business)
3. It’s the Norm- Enuff’ said we’ve been using this system for over 400 years and it
is relatively effective. There isn’t really that big a demand for reform.

11. Macho, Macho Voting System
In a divided society such as the UK there are
few opportunities for one single party to get
over 50% of the popular vote. It just isn’t
workable. FPTP allows single parties to rule
with large majorities and make decisions
quickly. The ruling party can act quickly
without fear of being overruled in an
emergency.
Put simply if a party puts forward a mandate
that wins them the bulk of seats then surely
we should give them a chance to implement
that model?
Equally if they fail.... We Get Rid Just as
Quickly!

12. I’m Here To Represent.... YOU
a All these people are representatives for a
community somewhere in the UK. Whilst we
may not know who all of them are, they are
familiar faces to their constituents.
They will all have close (hopefully) bonds with
their communities and attend regular-ish
surgeries with local constituents over
important local issues.
Because each constituency has one MP and
they are the one with the most individual
votes they must respond to local issues when
possible. Constituents will primarily vote on
local issues and if an MP fails to address these
then they run the real risk of being voted out.

13. Are You Diss (Advantaging) My Voting
System?
The following are all the bad things about FPTP. REMEMBER them, but also
remember that there are two sides to every argument, two sides to every coin and
a belief that tomorrow will be a better day!
1. Two-Party System
2. Winner’s Bonus
3. Plurality vs. Majority
4. Wasted Votes
5. Tactical Votes
6. Divisive

14. It’s Our Party And We’ll Cry If We
Want To
The two big parties in British Politics are clearly Labour and the Conservatives. It
has been this way for the past 100 years and will probably continue to do so.
Between them they polled 65.1% (19,336,141 votes) in the 2010 General Election.
If You then add the 3rd Party the Liberal Democrats then the figure goes up to
88.1% (26,172,965 votes). What this essentially means is that the 3 biggest parties
have a monopoly of support amongst the UK Public. If any party is to have any real
chance of breaking this monopoly then they must have wealthy backers, mass
support and a highly developed local and national structure. Of all the major fringe
parties none of them fit this bill!

15. Look At The Size Of My....Bonus
To say that FPTP exaggerates how popular you are is like saying that ITV exaggerate
how important Katie Prices’ life is!
The 2010 General Election is a good example:

16. What's That Coming Over The Hill, Is It
A Landslide?
What this means for us common folk is that results get exaggerated. How can
Labour in 1997 with only 43.2% of the National Vote (13,518,167 votes) receive
418 seats (63.2% of the seats) in the House of Commons. FPTP exaggerates the
result and increases the margin beyond recognition.
Whereas in 1992 the Conservatives got 41.9% of the vote (14,093,007 votes) and
got 336 seats (51.7%) of the seats in the House of Commons.
So let me get this straight.... You can get more votes, but still get less seats and a
smaller majority. Even when your share of the votes is only 1.3% less then Tony
Blair’s rabble 5 years later!?!

17. Plurality vs. Majority- Let’s Get It On!
Plurality
Once upon a time: Adam, Betty,
Shamrock and Cthulu take part in an
election. They ask 100 people which
candidate has the best hair. The
results were:
Adam- 36
Shamrock- 31
Betty- 24
Cthulu- 9
Adam is our sleek haired superstar
winner!!!!
Majority
At St. Cheatem’s College a similar
election is held between Mary,
Eduardo, Karlo and Bamboozle. The
results where:
Mary- 49
Eduardo- 21
Karlo- 16
Bamboozle- 14
However at St. Cheatem’s you need a
majority (51%) to win a hair contest.
So they resit the result until someone
gets 51% or over.

18. Recycle My Vote
How can any vote be wasted I hear you cry?
Well my idealistic, intellectual students allow me to explain.
Under First-Past- The-Post System anyone who doesn’t vote for the winner,
essentially wastes their vote. Ohh Yes well it may all well be in the spirit of
democracy but try telling that to the 18,088 people who voted for Nick Bent, or the
15,094 who thought Jo Crotty was their woman. What we’re saying is that the
19,641 who voted for David Mowat are the only ones who matter.
So lemme get this straight.... 33,182 people don’t matter diddly?
Psh.......

19. Knight to E7... Tactical Style
Again this ties into the idea of wasted votes. If you live in Whitney (Dave’s seat) or
Sheffield Hallam (Nick’s seat) or even Doncaster North (Ed’s seat). Then what is
the point of voting for anyone else? Because as we’ve already established...
Your Vote is worth diddly squat!
Or is it?
You Sneaky Little Blighter I see what your about to suggest.

20. What Is Tactical Voting?
An excellent question my educational friends. The answer is something like this...
Tactical Voting is where a citizen votes for a candidate who is not their first choice
because this candidate has more chance of unseating the current MP or winning
the seat. This has become increasingly popular amongst Labour voters in
Conservative strongholds, voting Liberal Democrat to unseat a Tory. It is also a
feature for Liberal Democrats in Conservative strongholds where Labour are 2nd.

21. Divide and Conquer
Let’s be honest for a second....
Who thinks that Southerners are Soft Boiled, Espresso Loving Socialite Champagne
Lefties who think that Welfare is buying Fair Trade Chocolate?
OR
That the Scottish are aggressive Nationalists who only wear a kilt because it annoys
the English and are welcome to North Sea Oil if it will shut them up about
independence?
OR
Yorkshire folk are Right Wing Farming Land Owners who use a Range Rover to drive
from the gate to the front door and generally don’t like anyone who earns less then
£30,000 a year?
OR
The Welsh can drop the act, we all know you speak English, There’s only 3 people in
Wales who speak Welsh and their all in Plaid Cmyru and lets be honest Wales
wouldn’t be much without all the English tourists going to Rhyl for the cheap rock
and the weather and going to Cardiff to get drunk and arrested for indecent
exposure?

22. It’s A Photo Finish
Point is the UK is a divided nation. With a Labour heartland in the North West of
England, Scotland and Wales, Conservative strongholds in the South and in rural
Northern communities. The Liberal Democrats have also began to establish
themselves in remote Southern Communities and smaller towns in the North.
Most of these seats are unwinnable by the opposition parties and this fosters
adversarial politics, in which successive Governments with different ideological
views win power and then reverse the policies of the previous Governments
creating instability, economic ruin and cheesy sound bites aplenty.

23. Round 2
Alternative Vote

24. Alternative Culture
Obviously we don’t have the Alternative
Vote in the UK, however it's worth knowing
about how AV works so that if we get an
exam question on it… We could easily
answer it.
AV is a Preferential System in which a voter
is asked to rank candidates in order of
preference.
For a candidate to win a seat they must
secure 50% or more of the overall votes
(therefore having a majority).

25. AV- Count
Let’s use the example of Warrington
South. The results on 1st preference
look like this:
David Mowat- Conservative- 19,641
Nick Bent- Labour- 18,088
Jo Crotty- Liberal Democrat- 15,094
James Ashington UKIP- 1,624
Steph Davies- Green- 427
Overall Turnout = 54,974
Amount needed under AV=27,487
So there is no winner yet!
Round 2
We remove the last place candidate
and give their second choices to the
other parties. Assuming that
Greens may vote Labour or Lib Dem:
David Mowat- Conservative- 19,641
Nick Bent- Labour- 18,301
Jo Crotty- Liberal Democrat- 15,308
James Ashington- UKIP- 1,624
Amount needed under AV= 27,487
Still no winner.

26. Round Eyed Girl
Round 3
With no winner we now remove the
UKIP candidate and allocate their 3rd
Preference. Would they vote Tory?
David Mowat- Conservative- 21,265
Nick Bent- Labour- 18,301
Jo Crotty- Liberal Democrat- 15,308
Amount needed under AV= 27,487
Still no winner.
Round 4
Now we remove the 3rd Placed Liberal
Democrats and allocate their fourth
choice. Now assuming that about 75%
would vote Labour. The final result
looks like:
1.*Nick Bent- Labour- 29,782*
2.David Mowat- Conservative- 25,092
So in the final round Labour win. Bear
in mind this is a rough outline. I'm
making generalisations on voting
trends. However it is an entirely
possible outcome.

27. The Mad, The Bad and the AV
Alternative Most
1. Every candidate elected has 50%
of the constituents voting for
them.
2. The elected candidate is broadly
popular with all members of a
constituency, not just a chosen
majority.
3. It still keeps the MP and
Constituency link favoured under
FPTP.
4. It works. It has been used in
Australian General Elections
since 1924.
Alternative Woes
1.It isn’t a Proportional system. If used
on the 1997 General Election result it
would have given Labour an even
bigger majority (77% of seats).
2. The candidate with the most 1st
preference votes isn’t guaranteed
victory, as shown by my example.
3. There is a small chance that
extreme fourth and fifth choice
candidates and voters may hold the
balance of power.

28. Round 3
Supplementary Vote

29. Supplements
The Supplementary Vote is already used in the UK. We use
it in all elections for Elected Mayors, such as Boris
Johnson. It’s a shortened Version of the Alternative Vote
(we still need over 50% to win) system, in that a voter only
puts down their 1st and 2nd preference. Let’s apply it to the
London Mayoral Elections.
London Elections 2008- 1st Preference
Boris Johnson- Conservative- 1,043,761
Ken Livingstone- Labour- 893,877
Brian Paddick- Lib Dem- 236,685
Sian Berry- Green- 77,374
Richard Barnbrook- BNP- 69,710
Alan Craig- Christian Alliance- 39,249
Gerard Batten- UKIP- 22,422
Lindsey German- Left List- 16,796
Winston McKenzie- Independent- 5,389

30. Supplementary My Dear Watson
In the second round of Supplementary Voting we remove ALL candidates except the
top two and we allocate all the votes based on people’s second preference. So the
contest looks like this, I’ve included the other candidates so you can see how each
person did:
Second Preference
Boris Johnson- Conservative- 257,792
Ken Livingstone- Labour- 303,198
Brian Paddick- Lib Dem- 641,412
Sian Berry- Green- 331,727
Richard Barnbrook- BNP- 128,609
Alan Craig- Christian Alliance- 80,140
Gerard Batten- UKIP- 113,651
Lindsey German- Left List- 35,057
Winston McKenzie- Independent- 38,954
Final
Boris Johnson- Conservative- 1,168,738
Ken Livingstone- Labour- 1,028,966

31. Do’s and Don'ts
Supplementaryes
1. The winning candidate (shown by
Boris) must have a broad 50% of
support across the electorate.
2. It eliminates the risks under AV of
3rd Choice minor parties sneaking
in. As this system only looks at the
top 2 candidates.
3. It works. The Supplementary is
used widely in the UK and across
Europe. It gives a strong mandate
like FPTP and has the majoritarian
aspect of AV.
Supplemeno
1. The winner as shown by Boris in
2008 might not be the most
popular 2nd Choice but gets through
because no-one got as many 1st
choice votes.
2. Even if we used this in the General
Elections it would not deliver a fair
result. In fact it would further
exaggerate the majorities that
parties get.
3. It is deeply punishing to minor
parties such as the Greens and
UKIP who’s 2nd Preference status is
essentially ignored.

32. Round 4
Regional Lists
(Proportional Representation)

33. Proportional Explanation
There are a number of different ways of having
elections using Proportional Representation.
Since 1999 we have use a system of PR called the
Regional List system for elections to the
European Parliament.
For EU Parliamentary Elections, the UK is divided
up into 11 multi-member constituencies. Each
constituency votes for the party they prefer.
When the votes are counted the parties get a
number of MEPs roughly in proportion with the
amount of votes they received.

34. How To Stop A Problem Like Nick Griffin
Britain uses what’s know as a ‘Closed List System’.
What this means for us plebes at the bottom is
essentially we don’t pick our MEP, the party pick it
for us.
Each party ranks their candidates numerically. The
more popular you are the closer to no.1 you are.
When the seats are given to the parties they pick
their MEPs based on who’s ranked highest on their
own list.
Note how Nick Griffin is no.1 on the BNP list and
the BNP got 2 seats.

35. Fair Share- European Parliament
Election Results
Party Percentage of Vote No. of Seats
Conservative 27.7% 25 (36%)
UKIP 16.5% 13 (19%)
Labour 15.7% 13 (19%)
Liberal Democrat 13.7% 11 (16%)
Green 8.6% 2 (3%)
BNP 6.2% 2 (3%)
SNP 2.1% 2 (3%)
Plaid Cymru 0.8% 1 (3%)

36. Regional Accents
Proportional
1. This is the most proportional of all
the systems. The more votes a
party gets the more seats they
get.
2. Smaller parties which are popular
but struggle in General Elections
(e.g. UKIP and Greens) can turn
this into seats at a European level.
3. The list system allows parties to
naturally increase the number of
female and ethnic minority
candidates by placing them higher
up the list.
Conportional
1. People don’t know who exactly
they are voting for. MEPs tend to
have very weak links to their
constituencies.
2. The parties control who gets
picked by placing them on lists.
The top candidate might not be
the best but the most loyal to the
party.
3. It isn’t totally perfect. The regions
in the UK are of different size
meaning it is harder for the
Greens in England to get elected
than the SNP in Scotland.

37. Round 5
Single Transferable Vote

38. What Is STV?
The Single Transferable Vote system is a voting system based on quotas of voters
(jokes about Poets come to mind). It is used in the Northern Irish Stormont
Elections and Parliamentary elections in the Republic of Ireland.
1. The old constituency model of FPTP still exists, however constituencies have
multiple members elected to Parliament.
2. Voters are asked to rank candidates numerically in order of preference.
Therefore we firstly look at voters first preference.
3. If after counting the first preference, there is no winner, then we look at the
second preference and count these as well. We continue right through all the
ranked preferences until we have enough candidates to fill all the seats. The
lowest ranked candidate is removed and their preferences are then allocated.
4. It is also crucial to note that once a candidate has enough votes for a seat, any
additional votes for them are ignored and we instead look at other choices.
The winning candidates for each are the ones that get a specific quota of votes.
This quota is decided using a specific formula.

39. Quota Me In For A Late Shift!
Behold! The Droop Formula to work out how many votes will be needed for any
candidate to win a seat in a constituency. Each candidate would need to reach this
quota in their constituency (though it will change in each constituency).
Quota= Total Valid Votes +1
Total Number of seats +1
Let’s put that Droop formula into practice!
(The number
of votes
needed to win
a seat)

40. Dr Droop Doggy Snogg
Lets put this Droop-tastic formula into practice:
e.g. Knowsley- Voting Population= 44,654
Representatives- 3 (it’s a big place that's why!) So......
Quota= 44,654 + 1 Quota= 44,654 +1
3+1 4
Quota= 11,163.5 + 1
Quota to win 1 seat = 11,164.5

41. Recap
So if for example the candidates in Knowsley are:
George Howarth- Labour
Flo Clucas- Liberal Democrats
David Dunne- Conservative
Steven Greenhalgh- BNP
Anthony Rundle- UKIP
There are 3 seats up for grabs!
So each candidate is going to need 11,165 votes. Realistically who do we think can
get that?

42. Ohh No! I’ve Got An STV (Voting
System)
The most often cited example of an STV in operation is the Northern Ireland
elections to Stormont. Below are the 2011 elections (more are due in 2015). These
are the most recent results:
Democratic Unionist Party- 38 seats (30.1%)
Sinn Fein- 29 seats (26.9%)
Ulster Unionist Party- 16 seats (13.2%)
Social Democrat and Labour Party- 14 seats (14.2%)
Alliance Party- 8 seats (7.7%)
What is worth noting is that these where the 1st free elections in Northern Ireland
for many years. The results show that STV has provided a careful balance between
the Loyalists and the Republicans. No one party can dominate in its views. Of all the
votes cast, over 80% were used to contribute to the final result.
What do you think this means?

43. You Were Made For Me… Everybody
Tells Me So!
a
Firstly a big thanks to the BBC on this. After the
General Election they looked at how that result
would have looked if voters had used the Single
Transferable Vote system.
The most obvious point is that it doesn’t actually
change the single biggest party in Parliament. The
Conservatives are still the winners, however this
time its much closer.
Labour are much much closer and the Liberal
Democrats are now an established 3rd party who
will be a large partner in any likely coalition.
And as we can see the fringe parties have trebled
their share of seats!

44. Strength In Numbers
The following are the good bits about STV. However it’s a like a coin, this debate has
TWO sides!
1. Proportional
2. Fair Play
3. Choice
4. Representation
5. Successful

45. Proportional Representation
One of the biggest flaws of the FPTP system is that votes will be worth more
depending what part of the country we live in. However under STV all this
changes. Because we can numerically rank our choices and that each constituency
has more then one representative, the result becomes a lot fairer. If you look at
the UK as a whole, this also has wider implications. Because each constituency has
a quota system, overall candidates around the country need similar votes to be
selected.
According to the BBC, each potential candidate will need between 15,000-20,000
votes to win a seat, irrespective of where that seat actually is.

46. Fair Play League
If winning is the aim, then STV is the game.
To get a majority in Parliament under the STV system it makes sense that across
the whole country that particular party must have gained over 50% of the popular
vote. Not only that but likelihood is they are at least our 1st or 2nd Choice.
So if you get over 50% of the vote the likelihood is your going to get wider support
across society and generally the Government is likely to have a bigger incentive to
Govern in the wider political interest of the voters.

47. So Much Choice
aIt’s most definitely all about personal choice
with STV. Whereas with FPTP you only get one
chance to make it count… You might never get
this moment again.
Under STV you can genuinely vote for the
Liberal Democrats in a safe Labour seat, You
can vote for the BNP in Burnley, you can vote
Conservative in Scotland and just to be
awkward you can vote both Loyalist and
Republican in Northern Ireland.
Unlike AV this system doesn’t create instability
by requiring 51% for a winner, instead we
have a specific fair quota for 2 or more
players.

48. Representation and Jubilations
Under STV each constituency has a number of representatives relative to the size
of its electorate. Clearly this means:
More Voters = More Representatives = More Political Clout
So a large seat like Knowsley might have 2 or 3 representatives whereas a smaller
seat like the Orkney Islands will get 2. This seems a lot fairer doesn’t it?
Incidentally because the quota will vary depending on the electorate it ends the
idea of safe seats.

49. Top Of The Tops!
.We built this system, we built this system on
Single Transferable Vote success to paraphrase
KISS.
The STV system already works with great success
in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland.
What a baptism of fire!
Point is if it can effectively provide sound
Government for such political partisan
communities, it might work a treat in the idyllic
political backdrop that is England.

50. I Can’t Wait For The Weakness To
Begin
Again its all very nice to know what's good about STV, but what
about the bad stuff. The path to A’s and B’s is littered with smashing
strengths AND weaknesses.
1. Accuracy
2. Votes vs. Seats
3. Losing Touch
4. Coalition Bonanza
5. Complex

51. Is STV Wide Of The Mark?
Now we’re getting into the big problems. Because STV uses a quota, once your
candidate is over that quota voting stops for that person.
So remember in the new and improved Knowsley we said our Quota was 11,165?
Well here’s how it panned out in 2010:
George Howarth (Labour)- 31,650
Flo Clucas (Lib Dem)- 5,960
David Dunne (Conservative)- 4,004
Steven Greenhalgh (BNP) – 1,895
Anthony Rundle (UKIP) – 1,145

52. Signed, Sealed The Winner I’m Yours!
Under the STV system only George has cleared the 11,165 vote quota (and by
quite a margin) so he is automatically selected. The other 20,485 Labour voters
are discounted here and we instead look at their second choice!
So an obvious (but not inevitable) beneficiary would be Flo Clucas who would
possibly get some of that lovely bounty of 2nd preference votes.
How likely is it Conservative Dave would get any?
Who do we think could be our number 3 candidate in Knowsley?
Is it me or do you get a sneaking suspicion the BNP might just crawl over the
quota?

53. Votes vs. Seats (Cue Rocky Theme
Music)
Despite the fact that STV is a
lot fairer then FPTP, there’s no
hiding from the fact that it still
isn’t totally fair. Those 20,000
odd people who’s Labour votes
where ignored aren’t happy
and I imagine the
Conservative, BNP and UKIP
won’t be too happy at getting
in as a 3rd choice... If at all.
Fact is Proportional results
represent the whole of society
much better.

54. Your Out Of Touch, Your Out Of Time
We’ve all had a good moan about the fact that George never comes
to visit. But you can imagine it would be a whole lot worse if we had
multiple representatives, especially if they are all from different bits
of Knowsley.
You can also bet that they would become
More aligned to their Westminster Parties
Then their constituents.

55. Don’t Be Shy Nick Go Bonanza!
As mentioned before the STV system
makes it a whole lot closer in terms of
the results. This also practically
guarantees that Governments will be
Coalitions in future. Remember what
we said about FPTP?
If you use FPTP you probably don’t like
coalitions, they are seen as weak and
ineffective. And right before your eyes
you have a voting system which gives
us..... Lots of Coalitions.

56. For Life's’ Little Complexities
Do you remember when the winner was the geezer with the highest number of
votes? Weren't they the best times?
Then all of a sudden STV comes along with it’s complex formulas and illogical quota
system. Does it have the same magic as a FPTP results night?
Does it heck.
Point is it isn’t immediately obvious who’s won and that's bound to turn people off
politics.

57. Round 5
Additional Member System

58. It’s Complicated
The Additional Member System (AMS)
is the name given to a hybrid electoral
system in which a proportion of the
representatives are selected using the
good old First-Past-The-Post system,
and the rest are allocated on the basis
of Proportional Representation.
While this all sounds a bit foreign, it’s
used with great success in Scotland for
the Holyrod elections. So to recap
AMS= FPTP + PR

59. How Does It Work?
The First-Past-The-Post Bit
This would operate the same way as
FPTP in the UK. However crucially
not all the seats in Parliament are
available under FPTP. So if we use
the UK as an example:
Overall Seats: 650
Seats Under FPTP: (e.g.) 325
The Proportional Representation Bit
What's different is that the rest of the
seats are allocated under PR.
1. Voters fill in 2 slips, 1 for their MP
and a second for their preferred
party.
2. The second slips are counted and
the remaining seats are allocated
based on their share of the vote.

60. D’Hondt If You Love Voting
To allocate seats under the AMS system each seat is allocated in rounds. In each
round we use the following formula is:
Extra Seat = Total Votes For Party +1
Total Seats Owned
So for all the 325 seats up for grabs we would use this system EVERY single time
and for every single party. The party with the highest figure for each round wins
the seat.
* However to qualify for this the party must reach a threshold (percentage) of
the overall votes cast. (E.g. In Germany and Scotland it’s 5%).

61. Bear With Me…..
D’Hondt If You Love Voting
No. Extra Seats= Total Votes for Party
Total Seats Owned + 1
(Say we want to add a further 3 seats)
Consider the following from the General Election 2010
Conservative- 10,726,614 (306)
Labour- 8,609,527 (258)
Lib Dem- 6,836,824 (57)
DUP- 168,216 (8)
SNP- 491,386 (6)
Plaid Cmyru- 165,394 (3)
Under the D’Hondt system the Lib Dems would accumulate a large number
Of extra seats.
Round 1
Tory= 10,726,614/307= 34,940
Labour= 8,609,527/259= 33,241
Lib Dem= 6,836,824/58= 117,871
SNP= 491,386/7= 70,198
DUP= 168, 216/9= 18,691
Plaid= 165,394/4= 41,349
Round 2
Tory= 10,726,614/307= 34,940
Labour= 8,609,527/259= 33,241
Lib Dem= 6,836,824/59= 115,873
SNP= 491,386/7= 70,198
DUP= 168,216/9= 18,691
Plaid= 165,394/4= 41,349
Round 3
Tory= 10,726,614/307
Labour= 8,609,527/259= 33,241
Lib Dem= 6,836,824/60= 113,947
SNP= 491,386/7= 70,198
DUP= 168,216/9= 18,691
Plaid= 165,394/4= 41,349

62. It’s Grim Up North (Of The Border)
The most obvious example of AMS in action is for the Scottish Parliamentary
Elections. Let’s look at how they roll and see if we can learn anything.
Scottish Parliament- FPTP- Part 1
In Scotland 73 of the Parliamentary
seats are decided using FPTP system.
The results are below.
SNP- 53
Labour- 15
Conservatives- 3
Liberal Democrats- 2
Scottish Parliament- PR- Part 2
In Scotland 56 of the Parliamentary
seats are allocated using the PR
system. Results below:
Labour- 22
SNP- 16
Conservatives- 12
Liberal Democrats- 3
Greens- 2
The big winners here are the SNP who are the largest single party and the
Conservatives who treble their share of the vote!

63. II Love AMS, Put Another Vote In The
System Baby!
Here we go it’s Strengths of the Additional Member System time!
1. Proportional
2. Representation
3. Choice
4. Simple-ish
5. Threshold

64. Your All In Proportion
Finally you now have a system which has all the stability of FPTP, but also has the
proportionality of PR. It takes account of the wider political mood of the nation
rather then a narrow campaign amongst swing voters.
So whilst the FPTP system still operates, we also have a second vote on much
broader terms in which voters say who they want NATIONALLY!
For the P.R. Part of the system each party puts forward a list of candidates and
depending upon how many seats they are allocated under the P.R. a number of
candidates from each list are sent to Government.

65. The Representation Of The People
Under P.R. there are no individual
communities only areas which vote for a
party and that party produces a list of
people they want. Depending on that
parties’ share of the vote a specific
number of candidates on that list will be
selected as representatives.
The most obvious example of this in
practice is the European Parliamentary
elections.
However with AMS we still keep our
constituencies….Yehy!

66. Choice Your Words Carefully
You get two voting slips:
1. Vote for your regional representative.
2. Vote for your party of choice.
Whilst this does allow an element of the ‘Safe Seat’ culture we get under FPTP, it
allows a cheeky outlet for voters to express themselves properly in the second
vote.
Not only that but the system deliberately rewards parties that struggle to get seats
under FPTP (I.e. the Liberal Democrats).

67. Simple-ish Politics
Most people understand First-Past-The-Post.
Most people understand the basic principle of Proportional Representation.
As a hybrid system AMS seems to get the best out of both systems. If selected it
would be relatively easy to explain to the electorate.
The only issue of complexity would be calculating who had won seats through the
D’Hondt formula.

68. Take The Bad With The Worse
Yep It’s that time were we criticise the system now. These are some of the issues
which arise with an AMS system.
1. Two-Tier
2. Weaklings
3. Under-Representation
4. Uncertainty
5. Accuracy?

69. Uncertain and Inaccurate
Uncertainty
There is no certainty to this system.
As my mini presentation shows a
large number of seats quickly fill up
for Liberal Democrats. As this
stands it seems ok, but as the seats
start to move amongst the smaller
parties it creates instability.
Accuracy
If we start tinkering with
constituencies is it fair to say they
start to become a bit artificial and
that the people chosen to
represent them are less significant
to the constituency?

70. 2nd Class Constituencies
This is almost a tale of 2 cities. If you constituency is electing using the FPTP part
of the system, then your representative will generally be known locally and will
have connections to the community they represent.
However.... If your constituency is allocated a representative under the PR bit of
the system then they will be chosen by a party list system and allocated to you.
They will be unlikely to know the constituency and will simply be selected on the
basis of how highly the party rates them.
So some constituencies have dedicated representatives (i.e. Labour in Scotland
are very good at this), whereas others are given representatives under PR who
may not be in the interests of that community (the overall growth in the SNP and
Conservative vote is a concern).

71. Weaklings
Weak Representatives
This ties into the last point about
party lists. Each party will have a list
of potential candidates for the PR
seats before the election. That list is
ranked in order of who the party
think is best. So MR/MRS no.1 spot
its looking promising. MR/MRS
no.325 slot might not have it so
easy. As such if they get elected
these people owe their career to
the party NOT to you!
Weak Government
If we look at the systems which use
AMS (Scotland, Germany, Italy and
Russia) one feature is that the PR
element creates political
uncertainty. With the exception of
Russia all these countries either
have a coalition Government or a
minority rule Government which
has to bargain for every issue or face
loosing a vote of no confidence.

72. Underground Over ground
Representation Free
If PR is all about a fair representation,
then why does the AMS version mean
we need a threshold to even qualify.
If we apply this to our elections then
for a party to qualify for the threshold
we need to look at a few things.
Total number of votes = 29,691,380
Threshold 5%
Voters for you needed = 1,484,569

73. The End…..
Now comes the test