1. Electoral Systems AS Government and Politics
Adam Hall

2. Key Questions
What is the purpose of elections, do they give recruitment, legitimacy or accountability?
What types of electoral system are there?
What results do they give?
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.
First- Past- The- Post (FPTP)
Alternative Vote
Supplementary Vote
Single Transferable Vote (STV)
Additional Member System (AMS)
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?
First 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.
Adam

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

9. Hopelessly Advantageous to You!
The following are considered the good points about FPTP. REMEMBER THEM!
Simplicity
Strong
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?
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.
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)
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
If there was a Mr Universe for voting systems then FPTP would be oiled, bronzed winner with rippled abs and a six-pack... Oops where was I? Ohh Yes
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.... YOUa
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!
Two-Party System
Winner’s Bonus
Plurality vs. Majority
Wasted Votes
Tactical Votes
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 ,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? 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? 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? is

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
Every candidate elected has 50% of the constituents voting for them.
The elected candidate is broadly popular with all members of a constituency, not just a chosen majority.
It still keeps the MP and Constituency link favoured under FPTP.
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 st 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
The winning candidate (shown by Boris) must have a broad 50% of support across the electorate.
It eliminates the risks under AV of 3rd Choice minor parties sneaking in. As this system only looks at the top 2 candidates.
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
The winner as shown by Boris in might not be the most popular 2nd Choice but gets through because no-one got as many 1st choice votes.
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.
It is deeply punishing to minor parties such as the Greens and UKIP who’s 2nd Preference status is essentially ignored.

32. Regional Lists (Proportional Representation)
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%
Liberal Democrat
13.7%
11 (16%)
Green
8.6%
2 (3%)
BNP
6.2%
SNP
2.1%
Plaid Cymru
0.8%
1 (3%)

36. Regional Accents Proportional
This is the most proportional of all the systems. The more votes a party gets the more seats they get.
Smaller parties which are popular but struggle in General Elections (e.g. UKIP and Greens) can turn this into seats at a European level.
The list system allows parties to naturally increase the number of female and ethnic minority candidates by placing them higher up the list.
Conportional
People don’t know who exactly they are voting for. MEPs tend to have very weak links to their constituencies.
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.
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. Single Transferable Vote
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.
The old constituency model of FPTP still exists, however constituencies have multiple members elected to Parliament.
Voters are asked to rank candidates numerically in order of preference. Therefore we firstly look at voters first preference.
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.
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, Quota= 44, Quota= 11, 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!
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!
Proportional
Fair Play
Choice
Representation
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 a
It’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.
Accuracy
Votes vs. Seats
Losing Touch
Coalition Bonanza
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. Additional Member System
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. The Proportional Representation Bit
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.
Voters fill in 2 slips, 1 for their MP and a second for their preferred party.
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. D’Hondt If You Love Voting
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, (258)
Lib Dem- 6,836, (57)
DUP- 168, (8)
SNP- 491, (6)
Plaid Cmyru- 165, (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!
Proportional
Representation
Choice
Simple-ish
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:
Vote for your regional representative.
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.
Two-Tier
Weaklings
Under-Representation
Uncertainty
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