u1t3

=**__Elections__**=


 * What is an election?**
 * A popular vote in which citizens get a chance to choose their representatives.
 * Elections should be free, fair and regular (therefore, democratic). e.g. in Britain we hold elections every 4-5 years.
 * A mandate is given to the winning party at elections; the size of this mandate also reflects the degree of victory.
 * What are the key functions of elections?**


 * **//To choose representatives//** – b/c country divided into constituencies and representatives chosen by citizens in each.
 * **//To choose government//** & PM – party with maj. of seats e.g. Labour 60%
 * The electorate gives permission to the governing party to carry out the policies in their manifesto i.e. their mandate. (Also see the Salisbury Convention – Unit 2)
 * An example of political participation. By exercising a choice between different political parties it gives us the power to decide in which direction the country will go.
 * The peaceful and orderly transfer of power.


 * Electoral systems**


 * First Past the Post (FPTP) //simple plurality//**


 * For UK General Elections to Westminster
 * The country is divided into 646 single-member constituencies.
 * Within each constituency each person eligible to vote will have ONE vote.
 * The winning candidate must get more votes than each of the other candidates, but need not achieve 50% of votes.
 * The political party with the most winning candidates, and therefore seats, goes on to form the government.

//Pros//
 * Strong government
 * Accountable (only one party in government, no manifesto compromise)
 * Simple and quick
 * No lengthy coalition negotiations
 * Good link between local MP and voter

//Cons//
 * Near absolute power for one party
 * Unkind to small parties (eg UKIP gain ½ million votes but no seats)
 * Seats don't reflect votes (eg. 2005 General Election)
 * Location || Party || Votes || Seats ||
 * England || Tory || 8.1 million ||  ||
 * England || Labour || 8 million || 90 More than Tories ||
 * UK || Lib Dem || 22% || 9% ||
 * Wales || Tory || 20% || 10% ||
 * Scotland || Labour || 40% || 75% ||
 * Scotland || Labour || 40% || 75% ||


 * Doesn't have to recognize views of 60% of the country who didn't vote for winners. If you didn’t vote for the winner then your vote was basically unused.
 * e.g. 1997, 48.2% of those who voted cast ineffective votes.
 * Unpopular policy can be passed (whereas coalitions are more “viscous”)
 * Promotes 2 party system (voter apathy) and “see-saw policy”.


 * List (Pure PR) System //- proportional//**


 * European Elections in England, Wales and Scotland
 * Huge multi-member constituencies (12 for all UK, 78 MEPs)
 * Vote for a party (closed list, so voters cannot choose between candidates from party list)
 * Parties get MEPs in proportion to share of vote
 * A quota, or number of votes required to win a seat, is calculated for that constituency.

//Pros//
 * Simple and transparent
 * % Votes = % Seats
 * Enables true 'national poll' to be taken.
 * Party HQ more likely to elect less typical candidates (woman, ethnics)

//Cons//
 * Sensitivity allowing smaller parties (UKIP, 2004 gained 12 seats)
 * No local link with massive super-constituencies
 * Coalitions
 * Party will choose its own loyal elite to go on list – impossible to remove unpopular figures as people don't vote for individuals.


 * Additional Member System (AMS) – //hybrid// (//proportional/simple plurality)//**


 * Scottish and Welsh devolved parliament elections and London Assembly
 * The country is divided into single-member constituencies AND regions
 * 2 votes, one for constituency (FPTP), one for party (List).
 * Allows parties which don't win constituencies to get “top up” seats.

//Pros//
 * Effective proportional results while retaining local links and increasing voter choice.
 * Strong link between MPs and constituents.
 * Allows voter to express support for a candidate without having to vote for candidate’s party.

//Cons//
 * It combines many of the faults of FPTP with many of the defects of the list system.
 * Tension between constituency and regional list MSPs.
 * Half of all MPs are not directly accountable to any voters (the regional list)
 * Makes it hard for one party to win (Coalition, Lib/Lab “marriage of convenience”)


 * Single Transferable Vote (STV)** – **//proportional//**

//Pros// //Cons//
 * For N. Ireland’s Assembly and Euro Elections
 * Choice of candidates from same party
 * Multi member constituencies in which voters will have MP choice (good for IRE) so that voters have representatives who share their views.
 * Choice of individual candidates allowing MP who reflects personal views and are willing to work on local issues in constituencies.
 * Very complex and slow
 * Candidates from same party may battle it out.
 * May lead to bribery (build up client bases giving out favors OR parochialism)


 * Referenda**


 * What is a referendum?**
 * A vote on an issue (e.g. proposed EU Constitution)
 * It is not legally binding (i.e. govt. doesn’t have to recognise result)


 * Referenda in the** **UK**


 * **1973:** //**Northern Ireland**//**//’s membership of//** **//UK//** – ‘Yes’ to remain in UK.


 * **1975:** //**UK**// **//membership of the EEC// –** ‘Yes’ to remain in EEC


 * **1979: //Devolution for//** **//Scotland//** **//and//** **//Wales//** **–** ‘Yes’, but Cunningham Amendment prevented it (40% of electorate was needed, low turnout).


 * **1997: //Devolution for//** **//Scotland//** **//and//** **//Wales//** **–** ‘Yes’ to Assembly in Wales, Overwhelming ‘Yes’ to devolved parliament and tax varying powers in Scotland.


 * **1998: //Devolution for//** **//Northern Ireland//** **–** 71% ‘Yes’ to Good Friday Agreement


 * Arguments for Referenda**

· They enable people to decide on **issues** which they might not have the opportunity to consider at a general election. · They offer another way for the public to get **involved** in politics. Increasing popularity in pressure groups suggests that people are interested in issues. Referenda are on issues. · The associated campaigns can **educate** the public and allow the public to make decisions from an educated viewpoint. · They are **democratic,** an example of direct democracy. · They allow the government to see where **support** for major policy lies. · They can help resolve **party splits.**


 * Arguments against Referenda**
 * The media could have undue influence on public opinion. (eg. Since the media is euro sceptic, media coverage on EU constitution would be unbalanced).
 * Government was elected to run the country and should do the governing.
 * Governments call referenda when they think they will get the decision they want
 * They undermine parliamentary sovereignty
 * People may not know enough about an issue to make an informed choice.
 * One side of the debate may have more resources at its disposal to fund its campaign.