Electoral systems: Summary
Majoritarian Systems: 50%+1 – two-party system
AV: not used – 2011 referendum
Electors rank candidates by putting numbers by their choices, if no
candidate has over 50% then the last placed candidate is eliminate
and their votes are redistributed
ADVANTAGES: reduces the need for tactical voting, they actually have a
majority
DISADVANTAGES: still not proportional, Churchill: ‘determined by the most
worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates’, 2011
referendum (68% voted no, 42% turnout), Nick Clegg ran the ‘Yes’
campaign said it was a ‘miserable little compromise’
SV: used to be used in police and crime/local elections/mayoral elections –
now FPTP
Rank candidates, all but the top 2 candidates are eliminated
The rest of the votes are redistributed
ADVANTAGES: reduces the need for tactical voting, majority result
DISADVANTAGES: the winner on first preferences can be overtaken by the
loser’s lower preferences, elimination happens to quickly, could have got
back in the full AV system, no proportional outcome, wasted votes
Plurality Systems: winning more than everyone else, no majority
needed – two-party system
FPTP: local, general elections and police and crime commissioner and
mayoral elections
Marginal seats have a much greater impact than safe seats
ADVANTAGES: easy, stable government with a clear mandate, strong
representative-constituency link, ‘government in waiting’, little public
appetite to change (2011 AV), keeps small parties out (UKIP 2015 12.6%
and 1 seat)
DISADVANTAGES: anomalous outcomes (1951 and 1974), coalitions, 2017
no ‘Strong and Stable’ government under May, winner’s bonus (over-
representation: 2015 election conservatives = 38% and 24% for Lib Dems
and UKIP but they only got 10 seats), pendulum effect, tyranny of the
majority.
Majoritarian Systems: 50%+1 – two-party system
AV: not used – 2011 referendum
Electors rank candidates by putting numbers by their choices, if no
candidate has over 50% then the last placed candidate is eliminate
and their votes are redistributed
ADVANTAGES: reduces the need for tactical voting, they actually have a
majority
DISADVANTAGES: still not proportional, Churchill: ‘determined by the most
worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates’, 2011
referendum (68% voted no, 42% turnout), Nick Clegg ran the ‘Yes’
campaign said it was a ‘miserable little compromise’
SV: used to be used in police and crime/local elections/mayoral elections –
now FPTP
Rank candidates, all but the top 2 candidates are eliminated
The rest of the votes are redistributed
ADVANTAGES: reduces the need for tactical voting, majority result
DISADVANTAGES: the winner on first preferences can be overtaken by the
loser’s lower preferences, elimination happens to quickly, could have got
back in the full AV system, no proportional outcome, wasted votes
Plurality Systems: winning more than everyone else, no majority
needed – two-party system
FPTP: local, general elections and police and crime commissioner and
mayoral elections
Marginal seats have a much greater impact than safe seats
ADVANTAGES: easy, stable government with a clear mandate, strong
representative-constituency link, ‘government in waiting’, little public
appetite to change (2011 AV), keeps small parties out (UKIP 2015 12.6%
and 1 seat)
DISADVANTAGES: anomalous outcomes (1951 and 1974), coalitions, 2017
no ‘Strong and Stable’ government under May, winner’s bonus (over-
representation: 2015 election conservatives = 38% and 24% for Lib Dems
and UKIP but they only got 10 seats), pendulum effect, tyranny of the
majority.
