the true title of the system is plurality within singlemember constituencies and the term first past the post really refers to the characteristic that it grants power to the first ID: 582903
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "First Past the Post" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1Slide2
First Past the Post
the true title of the system is ‘plurality within single-member constituencies’, and
the term ‘first past the post’ really refers to the characteristic that it grants power to the first party which achieves a majority of the seats in the House of Commons.Slide3
Some basic facts:
• In the UK it is used for general elections and for local elections in England and Wales.
• It is a very unusual system in the democratic world. The other main examples are elections to the US Senate and House of Representatives.
• It has been in existence in the UK in its basic form since 1832.
Candidate Votes won % of vote won
A 25,000 45.5
B 20,000 36.3
C 10,000 18.2Slide4
How does it work?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKAAq_8Poqo&safe=active
Write your own ‘story’ of FPTP in the UK (explain how it works)Keywords to use: Constituency, constituent, Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Prime Minister, party, electorate, electoral system, candidate.Slide5
How does it work?
• Each constituency returns one member.
• There is only one candidate nominated by each party (plus some independents).• Voters can only vote for one candidate.
• The winner in each constituency is the one who wins the
most
votes, even if this is not an
absolute
majority
.
• Such a simple majority is known as a plurality
.Slide6
Effects
No party has won an overall majority of the
votes in a general election.T
he
system
almost always
produces an outright winner in term of
a Commons
majority.
February
1974 was the
first
occasion when
no single
party won an overall majority since 1945 (
Labour
forming a short-lived minority administration
), then again in 2010.
Small parties are discriminated
against
In four of the seven elections since 1979 the government won an overwhelming
majority in
the
House of
Commons.
The value of a vote is determined by where you live and the concentration of votes in that area. In 2016
Half of all votes (50% exactly) went to
losing candidates, representing
some 15 million people who did not
see their
choice reflected in the outcome. This is a similar figure
to 2010
, when 52.8% of votes went to losing candidates
.
The number of MPs elected on less than 40% of votes
doubled between
2005 and 2010 (55 to 111). This election that trend
went into
reverse with only 50 candidates elected on less than 40%
of the
vote. Yet some 331 of 650 MPs were elected without an
absolute majority
. Eight MPs won on less than 35% of votes cast, and
one broke
the record for the lowest winning share of the vote in
UK
electoral
history, with 24.5
% (
Dr
Alasdair McDonnell, South Belfast,
SDLP)
For the previous three elections, no MP has achieved
the support
of 50% of the total electorate in their
constituency. This
changed this year, with three MPs getting the support of
over 50
% of the electorate (
Knowsley
, Liverpool Walton and
Liverpool West
Derby). 191 MPs however were elected with the support
of less
than 30% of their whole electorate.Slide7Slide8
In 2010 the Conservative and
Labour
parties secured 65% of the vote and 87% of the seats. In 2016 they achieved just over 67% of the vote resulting in nearly 87% of the seats for these two parties. The Conservatives and
Labour
have even
greater disproportional
sway in England and Wales, with 98% of
the available
seats between them on 72.6%
of
the vote
.
The
Conservative party
is
governing on
less than
37% of the popular
vote.
Taking
turnout
into account, the current government commands
the support
of just a quarter (24.4%) of the registered electorate.Slide9
The SNP
received
4.7% per cent of the national vote share (up from 1.7% in 2010) and 50% of the vote share in Scotland. This was an impressive result yet this result was magnified and translated from a landslide into a tsunami, resulting in 95% of Scottish seats.
This
leaves only three
MPs (5
% of the total) to reflect unionist support in Scotland – a
body of
opinion that received 55.3% of votes in the referendum in 2014.
While the SNP have clearly gained support from ‘No’ voters as
well as
from the ‘Yes’ camp, that there is such a small unionist voice
in Scotland is potentially
a further reflection of a broken electoral system.Slide10
Why do these effects occur?
• The system
favours parties whose vote is concentrated (mainly Labour).• It therefore discriminates against parties whose support is dispersed (Conservatives to
some extent
, but mainly Liberal Democrats).
• Voters who support parties which seem bound to lose, or who live in constituencies where
the result
is a foregone conclusion (so-called ‘safe seats’), feel that their votes are wasted and
so
may
not vote.
• Tactical
voting—
the practice whereby voters who know their votes
will not
affect the result vote for their second-choice party in order to have an influence on
the
result
.Slide11
What are the dis/advantages of this system?