UK Electoral Systems Quiz

FPTP elects MPs in single-member constituencies, with the candidate receiving the most votes winning. Advantages include simplicity, clear outcomes, strong constituency links, and a tendency to produce single-party majority governments. Disadvantages include disproportionality, wasted votes, safe seats, and under-representation of smaller parties.

AMS combines FPTP with a regional proportional element. Voters cast two votes: one for a constituency representative, another for a regional list. Advantages include balancing proportionality with constituency representation and fairer outcomes for smaller parties. Disadvantages include complexity, possible confusion, and tensions between constituency and regional representatives.

STV uses multi-member constituencies where voters rank candidates by preference. Seats are allocated proportionally using a quota system. Advantages include greater voter choice, proportionality, and better representation of minority groups. Disadvantages include complexity, weaker constituency link, and longer counting process.

SV is used for single-office elections, such as London mayoral contests. Voters cast a first and second preference; if no candidate wins a majority initially, second preferences are redistributed. Advantages include simplicity and broader support for winning candidates. Disadvantages include limited proportionality and wasted votes if second preferences are not redistributed.

FPTP is simple and decisive but often unfair to smaller parties. AMS, as used in Scotland and Wales, provides fairer outcomes and reflects a wider range of views. However, it can produce coalition governments, while FPTP tends to provide clear majorities.

FPTP prioritises strong governments and constituency links, whereas STV promotes proportionality and voter choice. FPTP disadvantages include wasted votes and unrepresentative outcomes; STV disadvantages include complexity and weaker constituency links.

FPTP tends to create decisive outcomes in general elections, while SV ensures that winners of mayoral elections have broader support. SV is more representative but less proportional overall, as it still benefits larger parties.

The Scottish Parliament uses AMS, producing more proportional outcomes than Westminster. For example, the SNP’s rise has been facilitated by AMS, reflecting voter preferences more accurately than FPTP. In contrast, Westminster elections under FPTP have continued to favour the two main parties, marginalising smaller parties.

Key referendums include devolution in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (1997–98), the 2011 AV referendum, the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, and the 2016 EU referendum. These had major impacts: advancing devolution, maintaining FPTP, challenging UK unity, and triggering Brexit.

They enhance democratic legitimacy, increase participation, and settle major constitutional issues directly. Referendums encourage political education and can check government power by involving the electorate in key decisions.

They may oversimplify complex issues, be influenced by populism or misinformation, and undermine representative democracy. Governments may hold referendums for tactical reasons, and results can produce divisions, as seen after Brexit.

Different electoral systems reflect different political needs. FPTP remains for Westminster due to tradition and a desire for decisive government. Devolved bodies use proportional systems to reflect pluralism and encourage representation of multiple parties, supporting legitimacy in new institutions.

FPTP tends to produce single-party majority governments, such as the Conservative victory in 2019. AMS and STV often lead to coalition or minority governments, such as SNP minority administrations in Scotland, requiring compromise and negotiation.

FPTP benefits larger parties and penalises smaller ones, leading to two-party dominance. Proportional systems such as AMS and STV allow minor parties like the Greens and Reform to gain representation, altering the balance of power.

Proportional systems like STV give voters greater choice, as they can rank candidates across and within parties. FPTP restricts choice, as many votes are wasted in safe seats. Proportional systems can increase participation and engagement, while FPTP may foster disillusionment among minority party supporters.