- Compare major voting systems
- Explain their effects on parties and government
- Evaluate which is ‘fairest’
Voting Systems
In 2015, UKIP won 12.6% of UK votes — and 1 seat out of 650. The system, not just the voters, decided that.
Definition: Proportional representation
Proportional representation (PR) awards seats in proportion to votes won. Contrast first-past-the-post (FPTP), where each district elects one winner — simple, but often wildly disproportional.
Key points
- FPTP: one winner per district; tends to two big parties, stable single-party government.
- PR: seats match votes; fairer, but often coalitions.
- No system is neutral: rules shape party numbers and strategies (Duverger’s law).
- ‘Fairest’ depends on values: proportionality vs stable government vs local representation.
2015: 12.6% of votes, 0.15% of seats
Under FPTP, UKIP’s evenly spread support won almost nothing; the SNP’s concentrated Scottish support won 56 of 59 seats with 4.7% of UK votes. Geography plus rules decided it.
Practice
Why does FPTP tend to produce two-party systems?
Wasted votes.
Voters avoid ‘wasting’ votes on small parties, and small parties can’t win districts — so support consolidates into two big parties (Duverger’s law).
Give one argument for and one against PR.
Fairness vs decisiveness.
For: seats match votes — fairer representation. Against: frequent coalitions can mean slower, less decisive government.
Key takeaways
- Voting rules translate votes into power — non-neutrally.
- FPTP favours big parties and stable government.
- PR is fairer but usually means coalitions.
- Choose the system by the values you prioritise.