in this essay I will look at the main types of electoral systems and look at their advantages and disadvantages. From my research it is clear that different electoral systems will be better suited to different democracies dependent on their aims and objectives, so I will look at which electoral system is best for providing a decisive government, political/social representation and increasing voter choice.
A decisive government is one that is able to reach judgement on issues with little to no opposition, this is in order to allow for policy to be implemented quickly, with less gridlock involved in the debate. The system that often produces these results is majoritarian, more specifically first-past-the-post (FPTP). This is because these systems generally produce single-party governments, using the UK as an example, the 2010 general election was Britain’s first coalition government in 36 years . This is effective as single party governments are less dependent on other parties as they do not need their support to pass legislation. A single party would be free to implement the vision set out in the manifesto as it sees fit, this is beneficial as it means there will be more voter satisfaction among those that voted for them. However, although the single party will have won the majority in parliament, it does not necessarily mean that they have won a majority of votes in the election. As a matter of fact, in the UK no “post-war British political party has won more than 50% of the popular vote” . This suggests that although FPTP may allow for a more decisive government it may not produce decision’s that the majority are happy with as it is likely that they were not voted for by the majority. This was seen in 2015 when the Conservative party won 331 seats with only 36.9% of the vote . However, another majoritarian electoral system, the alternative vote, does counter this problem. The alternative vote system has citizens rank candidates, so in the event that no-one wins 50% of the votes then votes are re-allocated accordingly until a candidate have 50% of the vote. This still allows for somewhat of a decisive government as although there may be a coalition government, there was still a chance of this under first -past -the -post, however the alternative vote would mean that the party making decisions would be more citizens second, if not first choice. This therefore still allows for a relatively decisive government, while ensuring that the decisions they make are wanted by more voters. However, even if there is a single party they can still face opposition from other parties and the media, and as most parties are likely to want to be voted in again at the next election, they will act in a way that pleases the most people. This means that the level of their decisiveness is dependent on how far their manifesto and vision are in line with general consensus. Therefore, even though majoritarian electoral systems are the best at producing the most decisive governments, this is dependent on whether there is a hung parliament which results in a coalition which first–past–the–post and the alternative vote can sometimes produce, and how in line a party’s view are with general consensus.
Although a decisive government is an aim for many countries, many people favour fairer representation as more of a priority. An electoral system that provides more representative results are the proportional systems such as closed – list proportional representation (CLPR), open – list proportional representation (OLPR) and the single transferable vote (STV). These are more representative as, similarly to AV, citizens receive more than one vote (excluding CLPR) and therefore even if their first choice is not elected, it is likely that their second or third choice will be. These systems employ more complicated systems to calculate how to award seats such as the D'Hondt method. The D'Hondt method works by dividing the number of seats that a party/candidate has by the number of they’ve already won plus one . This ensures fairer representation for voters as it means that the results are likely to be highly proportional. An example of this is the 2014 European Elections in which UKIP received 33% of votes which resulted in them gaining 40% of seats, and Labour receiving 25% of votes which allowed them 20% of seats . This more proportional system ensures that every vote has equal value, making it consistently more proportional. They also, for the most part, abolish safe seats and tactical voting which means that not only are votes more equal, they are also more likely to be the vote that citizens actually wish to cast, not what they feel they have to. Not only are proportional systems effective systems in providing voter representation, this electoral system, closed–list proportional representation in particular, strengthens political representation. This is because as each party rank their candidates in order of preference privately, voters know only which party they are voting for not which candidate. Therefore, in theory parties can use this form of anonymity to push diverse candidates toward the top of their list, therefore providing more opportunities for minority groups that may otherwise may not have been elected. However, although a proportional system can improve representation in some respect, it can also limit it in other ways. Although votes would be more equal, in the case of CLPR, voters have very limited choice as they have no say over the MP’s that are elected, only the party. This is a significant disadvantage as although for the most part a party may have similar views, there are always discrepancies within the party, as there would not be a need for the whip in parliament if all MP’s were always in consensus. This therefore is a disadvantage if the party one votes for win a seat in their constituency, but it is not a candidate that agrees with their view, it is likely that their view will not be represented by them in parliament which consequently does not increase representation. Representation may also be weakened as in this system the UK is divided into 12 large electoral districts , this somewhat limits representation as the clear link between each MP and their constituency is broken.
A system that does however combat most of the issues associated with voter choice and representation is a mixed member system such as the Additional Member System (AMS)/ Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) or the Alternative Vote Plus (AV+). These systems work by combining elements of majoritarian and plurality systems, with some MP’s elected in single – member constituencies, and others elected in multi-member constituencies. This reinforces voter choice as they allow for citizens to vote for a minority party using their regional vote without fear of their vote being wasted. This system also maintains an MP – constituency link which strengthens representation as constituents have a body to address any grievances or proposals to so their views are more likely to be represented in parliament. They also provide political representation as even if a party does not win many votes on a constituency level, they are likely to receive some on a regional level, which means their party will receive some level of representation in parliament. An example of this is the Scottish Parliament Election in 2011, in which although all the five main parties were not represented on a constituency level, they all had at least one regional MSP , Therefore heightening political representation. These systems, although not as proportional as the purely proportional systems, do also provide broadly correlative results. Using the aforementioned 2011 Scottish Parliament Election as evidence we can see that labour won 26.3% of the vote and that allowed them 28.7% of total seats . However, one disadvantage of a hybrid system is that it can create two classes of MP, those that are accountable to the electorate as they relied on their vote, and those that are accountable to party leaders who gave them priority on the party list. This is negative as it would not necessarily increase representation as half of the MP’s would not be representing anybody. This system can also prove to be very complicated as the electorate are required to vote more than once, which may have a bad impact on voter turnout. As the global voter turnout has already dropped by more than 10% in the last 25 years it may be the case that a more complicated system would increase voter fatigue, which would then in turn decrease representation as the size of the electorate is smaller and therefore less citizens are being represented. Therefore while a hybrid system benefits from the advantages of both a hybrid and majoritarian system, it also has its own downsides.
Overall, the enquiry into whether there is a ‘best type’ of electoral system is a complicated one as it depends on what a country’s aims and objectives are. For any democracies that favour a decisive government a simple plurality system of first-past-the-post would be effective as it is likely to result in a single party government. Nonetheless, for a country concerned purely with representation, a proportionally representative system would prove best as a system such as the Closed List PR provide very proportional results. However, a mixed/ hybrid system, although not perfect, may provide a balance that best suits most countries, as it in some ways provides the ‘best of both worlds’.