UK/US Elections 1) Electoral systems 2) Timing of elections 3) Candidate selection 4) The election campaigns

1) UK/US Electoral systems Both countries employ the first-past-the-post (simple plurality) system in ‘national’ elections. In the USA, House Members are elected to represent a district and each Senator is elected to represent an entire State. The President is the candidate who is able to secure the support of more than half of the Electoral College votes. Nearly all States award their Electoral College votes on a winner-takes-all basis. In the UK, MPs are elected to represent a single constituency. Lords are not elected. The Prime Minister is normally the person who leads the party controlling the majority of seats in the Commons. The Commons could therefore be seen as a kind of ‘electoral college’ in the selection of a Prime Minister.

UK/US Electoral systems The similarities between the UK and US systems means that in both countries it is possible to have a ‘chief executive’ taking office with a smaller share of popular vote than the defeated ‘party’. e.g.1974 (Feb.) in the UK 2000 in the USA

2) Timing of elections Whereas in the USA elections to the various national offices are staggered and subject to fixed terms, this is not the case in the UK. In the USA, House Members are elected for a fixed term of two years, the President for four years, and the Senate for six – with one third elected every two years on a rolling cycle. ‘The Presidential Election, occurring in regular course during the rebellion added not a little to the strain.’ Abraham Lincoln on the 1864 Presidential Election. In the UK, the executive is not separately elected, the upper chamber is not elected at all, and the timing of elections to the Commons is – within the 5 year limit – in the hands of the incumbent Prime Minister. This allows elections to be timed in line with political considerations.

3) Candidate selection In both the UK and the USA candidate selection was once dominated by the party machines. This was often said to result in the selection of candidates who were not sufficiently representative of the broader population. In the USA, the selection of candidates was once said to be in the hands of the local and national party bosses in their ‘smoke filled rooms’. In the UK, the process was often dominated by the activists who dominated at the level of the Constituency Labour Party or the leading lights in the local Conservative associations.

3) Candidate selection In the 20th century, however, candidate selection on both sides of the Atlantic developed in ways which could be said to have extended and enhanced popular participation. In the USA, there has been an increase in the use of primaries - first in the selection of candidates for Congress and more recently for selecting the delegates that attend each party’s national nominating convention in presidential election years. In the UK, the move towards one-member-one-vote at constituency level has allowed for greater participation in the selection of Labour and Conservative parliamentary candidates. There have also been experiments with more open ‘hustings’ and primaries.

3) Candidate selection That said, the national parties retain an influence over candidate selection in both countries. In the USA, the parties can still exert and influence by offering financial or other material support to candidates, or by working behind the scenes to undermine a rival for the nomination e.g. in the USA, it was clear that the Democrat hierarchy favoured John Kerry over Howard Dean in In the UK, the major parties still operate on the basis of approved lists of candidates and they can still normally impose a candidate on a constituency where the need arises e.g. Labour’s decision to ‘parachute’ former Tory MP Shaun Woodward into the safe Labour seat of St Helens ahead of the 2001 General Election – or the numbers of former Labour special advisors who have been found safe seats.

4) The election campaigns USA Long campaign period Low levels of voter registration Huge amounts of money raised and spent Parties/candidates buy time on television Televised debates between major party presidential candidates Newspapers often state- based or city-based Candidate-based elections UK Short campaign period High levels of voter registration Smaller amounts of money raised and spent Buying of television time outlawed No televised debates between the party leaders Newspapers often national and London-based Party-based elections