UK Election Systems.
Introduction.
Electoral/voting systems are what is used across the world in electing representatives. It is these systems that determine the rules on how candidates and parties should be chosen for them to be able to assume office duties. The United Kingdom, like any other country around the globe, as the electoral system, guides its elections. The UK has different voting systems that vary from one to the other in the way they are conducted. It is worth noting that in earlier days, before 1997, the UK was using the same voting system except for Northern Ireland (Paul, 57). However, after 1997, many other different voting systems have come into play and are being used. Other than the First Past the Post (FPTP) system, we also have AV-Alternative Vote system, the SV-Supplementary Vote system, the STV-Single Transferable Vote, the Closed Party List System, and the Additional Member System. This is paper is thus going to major in discussing tow of these systems, which are the SV and the STV systems.
The Single Transferable Vote System (STV).
The STV is a form of proportional representation where parties have their strengths matching that of the support they gunner in the country. This gives the representatives a secure local link. This system is used in many parts, including the Malta, Australia, the Ireland Republic, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. In Australia, this system is referred to as the ‘Hare-Clark’ and ‘ranked-choice voting in multi-member seats’ in America.
The STV works in such a way that bigger voting areas elect a specific small team of representatives as opposed to a situation where one person is set to represent all the people in a small area. They are these representatives, therefore, who are expected to act as a reflection of the diverse opinions of the people in the areas they represent. On the day of elections in a particular region, the voters are expected to list their candidates in the order of preference, starting from one for the most preferred downwards. In this system, parties are bound to nominate one or more candidates in each area (Farrell & Katz, 24). People votes are moved by those counting in a situation where the selected candidate has enough votes already or stands a high winning chance.
For one to win where the STV system is used, there is a certain quota that the candidate needs to surpass. The quota is thus calculated by the people counting based on the votes cast and the number of available vacancies. Voters are therefore restricted to one vote each. After completing the counting process, the candidate with the highest number of counter votes above the set quota cut is elected. The other figures of votes by the winning candidate after reaching the set quota are not ignored but rather are carried over to the candidate who is the runners up. In a case where none of the candidates meets the set quota, then there is the elimination of the least popular candidate by the counting team. Those who vote are then moved over to the second favorite candidates of the voters. The process is thus continuously repeated until all the vacancies are filled.
The STV electoral system guarantees the public power. Ireland and Scotland’s evidence suggested that voters use this method in ways that are a bit sophisticated. The voters can elect the parliament members based on their abilities as they are free to choose candidates from different or the same parties. Independent candidates are also eligible for being voted for without the voters having their votes go to waste. It is through this representation that the voters get the voice to speak out their opinions.
Supplementary Vote (SV) system.
The Supplementary Vote System entails a state where the candidates are tasked with carrying out massive campaigns to get a broader base for their support. In the UK, the SV is used in the election of Police, Mayors, and Crime Commissioners (Gavin, Coleman & Taylor, 14). The SV incorporates the broader group of the ‘preferential voting systems’ that includes the Contingent vote as used in the Sri Lankan Presidential elections and the Australian AV. The Alternative Vote is based on the majoritarian system where the winner is expected to gunner a majority of the cast votes. What makes it preferential is the way the candidates are ranked in order from the most to the least preferred.
During the voting process, on the ballot papers are two columns alongside the candidates’ names. The voters are thus expected to mark one of the column boxes with an X for their favorite candidate and another X in the next box for the second preferred candidate. Marking the second preferred candidate is not a must though, as some voters may not this kind of candidate in their mind. The voters are at liberty to put an X in both boxes for the same candidate though it is worthless as that will still be counted as one vote for the selected candidate.
Upon counting, the votes for the candidates are considered, and the one who gets 50% and above is the one who is deemed to be elected. In a scenario where none of the candidates gets 50% and over, the top two candidates are thus the only ones who proceed for a run-off. The rest of the candidates from the third one are therefore eliminated from the race. The votes of those whose favorite candidates have been removed are moved to add up on their second-favorite candidates. After all, the process of vote shifts from the preferred to the second preferred, the candidate with the higher number of votes from the run-off is thus declared the winner (Carl, 23).
As opposed to the FPTP system, in the Supplementary Vote, the politicians need a more extensive support base. It is equally unlikely that they get more than half a vote as it would have been in the use of Alternative Vote. The supplementary system is noted as the most encouraging and positive style for the campaigning candidates.
Work Cited.
Berman, Gavin, Charley Coleman, and Mark Taylor. “Police and crime commissioner elections, 2012.” Economic Indicators 6 (2012): 12.
Farrell, David M., and Richard S. Katz. “Assessing the proportionality of the single transferable vote.” Representation 50.1 (2014): 13-26.
Lundberg, Thomas Carl. “Electoral systems in context: United Kingdom.” (2018): 627-650.
Mitchell, Paul. “The single transferable vote and ethnic conflict: the evidence from Northern Ireland.” Electoral Studies 33 (2014): 246-257.