Elections, Electoral Systems and Voting Trends

What elections are actually for

An election does more than pick a winner. In a democratic system it does four separate jobs, and exam questions on "the purpose of elections" want more than the first one. - **Choosing representatives** to make decisions on everyone's behalf - **Giving a government legitimacy** - a mandate to govern, because people chose it - **Holding people to account** - a representative who has done badly can be removed - **Transferring power peacefully**, which is the difference between a democracy and the alternatives Here in Northern Ireland there are **18 constituencies**. Those same eighteen areas elect MLAs to the Assembly one way and MPs to Westminster a completely different way. Understanding why is most of this topic.

Why hold them at all?

A government has just been elected with a clear result. Which statement best explains what the election has given it?

• A mandate: the authority to govern, because the people chose it, and the knowledge that it can be removed at the next election
• Permanent power until it decides to hold another election
• Proof that everyone agrees with all of its policies
• Nothing beyond a list of names

STV and first past the post

Two systems, the same eighteen constituencies, completely different results.

How an STV count works

Put the stages of a single transferable vote count into order.

• Voters number the candidates in order of preference rather than marking a single X
• A quota is calculated: the number of votes a candidate needs in order to be elected
• Any candidate who reaches the quota on first preferences is declared elected
• Votes an elected candidate did not need are transferred to the next preference marked on them
• If seats remain and nobody reaches the quota, the lowest candidate is eliminated and their votes transfer
• Transfers and eliminations repeat until all five seats in the constituency are filled

Match each feature to its system

The case for first past the post

Select the TWO strongest arguments in favour of first past the post.

• It is simple to use and quick to count, so a result is known within hours
• It usually produces a single-party government, so responsibility for decisions is clear
• It gives every party a share of seats matching its share of votes
• It lets voters choose between candidates of the same party

Proportionality or strong government

There is one dial behind nearly every question on this topic, and turning it up at one end turns it down at the other. **Turn it towards proportionality** and the result reflects how people actually voted. Smaller parties win seats, fewer votes are wasted, and a range of views reaches the chamber. But no one party has enough seats to govern alone, so a government must be negotiated. **Turn it towards decisive government** and one party usually wins enough seats to govern on its own. Decisions get made and the public knows who is responsible. But the seat share may look very little like the vote share, and many people's votes elect nobody. **Neither end is simply better.** An answer that says one system is fair and the other is not has stopped halfway. An answer that names the trade-off, and then says which end suits the situation being asked about, is doing the evaluation the marks are for.

Two systems, one voter

Northern Ireland has _____ constituencies. In an Assembly election each one returns _____ MLAs using the _____ system, in which voters rank candidates and a candidate is elected on reaching the _____. In a Westminster election each of the same areas returns a single MP using _____, where the candidate with the most votes wins even without a majority. The first system is more proportional; the second more often produces a government formed by one party alone.

Referendum vocabulary

A referendum puts one question directly to the electorate instead of leaving it to elected representatives.

When is a referendum the right tool?

Which of these is the strongest reason for putting a question to a referendum rather than deciding it in a legislature?

• The question is a major constitutional one that cuts across party lines, so no election result could be read as a mandate for either answer
• It is the quickest way to decide something
• It lets the government avoid responsibility for the outcome
• It is cheaper than a parliamentary debate

Spot the problems with a referendum

A description of a proposed referendum. Tap the TWO details that a critic of referenda would point to.

• A government proposes a referendum on a major constitutional change. Both main parties are split on the question, so no general election could settle it.
• The change involves detailed legal and economic consequences, which the ballot reduces to a single yes or no
• . Campaign spending will be regulated and an independent commission will oversee the count.
• Turnout is expected to be below half the electorate, so a narrow win would represent a minority of those entitled to vote
• . The result will be implemented by legislation.

Referenda in an answer

**"Evaluate the use of referenda in a democracy. (12 marks)"** "Referenda have a clear democratic strength. They give people a direct say on a question their representatives cannot settle, and a decision made that way carries a legitimacy no parliamentary vote could match. The 1998 referendum on the Belfast Agreement, approved by 71% of those voting in Northern Ireland, is an example of a constitutional settlement given exactly that authority. The objections are equally real. A complex question is reduced to yes or no, so voters cannot endorse part of a proposal and reject the rest. Turnout is often lower than at a general election, so a narrow result may represent a minority of the electorate. And a national majority can outvote a region or a minority entirely: in 2016 the UK voted 52% to leave the European Union while Northern Ireland voted 56% to remain. **On balance, referenda suit a narrow category of question**: constitutional issues that divide parties internally, where the alternative is a decision nobody has a mandate for. They suit ordinary policy poorly, because that is what elected representatives are chosen to handle." Note two things. The conclusion names **the condition** rather than sitting on the fence. And the 2016 figures are used to make a point about how referenda work, not to argue that either result was right. **That is how to use a live political example in an exam answer.**

Why turnout falls

Select the TWO explanations for low turnout that an examiner would count as developed reasons rather than assertions.

• In a safe seat the outcome is close to certain, so voters conclude their individual vote cannot change anything
• Some voters, and younger voters in particular, feel the issues parties campaign on do not address their own circumstances
• People who do not vote are simply lazy
• Voting is difficult because it is restricted to a small number of people

Write a balanced line on votes at 16

Build a sentence that gives the case, the objection, and what would settle it.

Getting more people to vote

A committee is asked to recommend ways of raising turnout. Work through the options with it.

• A member proposes compulsory voting, pointing to countries where turnout exceeds 90%. What is the strongest objection to raise?
• Another member says low turnout is caused by apathy and nothing can be done. How do you respond?
• The committee must report. What makes the recommendation strong?

Your turn: fix the turnout

Explain how people are elected in Northern Ireland and evaluate one way of increasing participation.

• Explain how MLAs are elected and how that differs from how MPs are elected
• Give one advantage of each of the two systems
• Give two reasons why turnout might be low, explaining the reason rather than naming it
• Evaluate either lowering the voting age or compulsory voting, giving both sides and stating what would decide the question