Evaluate the extent to which the use of alternative electoral systems has improved
democracy in the UK. (30)
Intro, improve democracy in theory but not practically
An electoral system aims to calculate the number of elected positions in government that individuals
are awarded after elections. Alternatives to FPTP, such as AMS and STV, offer a stronger relationship
between the number of seats won and the number of votes won than FPTP. In addition to the higher
proportionality, the alternative systems allow for improved representation of minorities, and should
therefore improve democracy. However, in practice the results of alternative systems are inferior or
at least similar to those produced by FPTP, suggesting that they do not significantly improve
democracy. Furthermore, the complexity and inefficiency of alternative systems have resulted in
lower voter turnout, suggesting that alternative systems do not improve democracy in practice.
Is democracy improved, Voter turnout with FPTP, legitimacy, wasted votes
The issue of legitimacy underpins whether or not alternative systems have improved democracy: as
voter turnout does not significantly improve under alternative electoral systems, they do not greatly
improve democracy in the UK. For example, while the aspect of proportional representation under
the Alternative Member System (AMS) may in theory discourage voter apathy, turnout in the 2021
Scottish Parliament election was at 63%, a slight improvement from turnout since 1999 consistently
being less than 60%. Similarly, turnout in Northern Irish Assembly elections under Single
Transferable Vote (STV) has varied from 2003-2017 between 55% and 65%. Comparatively, turnout
of Westminster elections under FPTP in 2015 was 67%, and in 2017 this rose to almost 69%. This
indicates that not only do alternative systems consistently produce a turnout that is similar to that
achieved under FPTP, but turnout has consistently been lower under alternative systems. This
suggests that the increased complexity and inefficiency of alternative systems outweighs the
marginally improved proportionality they produce. Furthermore, while the ‘winner takes all’ nature
of FPTP results in more wasted votes than alternative systems, its efficiency and simplicity counter
this and result in slightly improved turnout compared to alternative systems. Therefore, there is no
notable increase in the legitimacy of the elected body under alternative systems since turnout
remains relatively low across electoral systems. However, the improved proportionality under
alternative systems may improve turnout in the long run. For example, from 2011 to 2021, turnout
in Scottish Parliamentary elections improved by 13%. In a similar 10-year period, turnout for
Westminster elections went from 61.4% in 2005 to 66.2% in 2015, increasing only by about 5%.
Similarly, turnout in Northern Irish Assembly elections improved by 10% over one year: from 55% in
2016 to 65% in 2017. This indicates that turnout is rising more rapidly in Scotland and Northern
Ireland under AMS and STV than in Westminster under FPTP. This suggests that alternative systems,
which offer more proportional election results, are countering voter apathy and encouraging higher
turnout, which will result in assemblies with greater legitimacy overall, thereby improving
democracy. However, in the case of the Northern Ireland Assembly election, such high turnout was
produced under an anomalous snap-election caused by the breakdown of the power-sharing
executive, and it may not be accurately representative of future trends in turnout. Similarly, while
turnout is increasing in Scotland, the number of spoilt ballots across particular wards has increased
since 2017, with one ward seeing almost 6% of votes being spoilt. Therefore, as the development of
increased turnout under alternative systems in the long run is only speculative, it does not outweigh
democracy in the UK. (30)
Intro, improve democracy in theory but not practically
An electoral system aims to calculate the number of elected positions in government that individuals
are awarded after elections. Alternatives to FPTP, such as AMS and STV, offer a stronger relationship
between the number of seats won and the number of votes won than FPTP. In addition to the higher
proportionality, the alternative systems allow for improved representation of minorities, and should
therefore improve democracy. However, in practice the results of alternative systems are inferior or
at least similar to those produced by FPTP, suggesting that they do not significantly improve
democracy. Furthermore, the complexity and inefficiency of alternative systems have resulted in
lower voter turnout, suggesting that alternative systems do not improve democracy in practice.
Is democracy improved, Voter turnout with FPTP, legitimacy, wasted votes
The issue of legitimacy underpins whether or not alternative systems have improved democracy: as
voter turnout does not significantly improve under alternative electoral systems, they do not greatly
improve democracy in the UK. For example, while the aspect of proportional representation under
the Alternative Member System (AMS) may in theory discourage voter apathy, turnout in the 2021
Scottish Parliament election was at 63%, a slight improvement from turnout since 1999 consistently
being less than 60%. Similarly, turnout in Northern Irish Assembly elections under Single
Transferable Vote (STV) has varied from 2003-2017 between 55% and 65%. Comparatively, turnout
of Westminster elections under FPTP in 2015 was 67%, and in 2017 this rose to almost 69%. This
indicates that not only do alternative systems consistently produce a turnout that is similar to that
achieved under FPTP, but turnout has consistently been lower under alternative systems. This
suggests that the increased complexity and inefficiency of alternative systems outweighs the
marginally improved proportionality they produce. Furthermore, while the ‘winner takes all’ nature
of FPTP results in more wasted votes than alternative systems, its efficiency and simplicity counter
this and result in slightly improved turnout compared to alternative systems. Therefore, there is no
notable increase in the legitimacy of the elected body under alternative systems since turnout
remains relatively low across electoral systems. However, the improved proportionality under
alternative systems may improve turnout in the long run. For example, from 2011 to 2021, turnout
in Scottish Parliamentary elections improved by 13%. In a similar 10-year period, turnout for
Westminster elections went from 61.4% in 2005 to 66.2% in 2015, increasing only by about 5%.
Similarly, turnout in Northern Irish Assembly elections improved by 10% over one year: from 55% in
2016 to 65% in 2017. This indicates that turnout is rising more rapidly in Scotland and Northern
Ireland under AMS and STV than in Westminster under FPTP. This suggests that alternative systems,
which offer more proportional election results, are countering voter apathy and encouraging higher
turnout, which will result in assemblies with greater legitimacy overall, thereby improving
democracy. However, in the case of the Northern Ireland Assembly election, such high turnout was
produced under an anomalous snap-election caused by the breakdown of the power-sharing
executive, and it may not be accurately representative of future trends in turnout. Similarly, while
turnout is increasing in Scotland, the number of spoilt ballots across particular wards has increased
since 2017, with one ward seeing almost 6% of votes being spoilt. Therefore, as the development of
increased turnout under alternative systems in the long run is only speculative, it does not outweigh
