Higher Modern Studies - AMS vs FPTP
The Additional Member System gives voters more choice and better representation than does First Past the Post. Discuss.
The AMS and FPTP are voting systems in use for the Scottish Parliament and House of Commons elections respectively. It can be argued that AMS gives voters more choice and better representation than FPTP, and in order to assess the validity of this argument 3 key indicators must be analysed: constituency links; proportionality and representation of smaller parties.
Proportionality is a key factor in assessing the fairness of a voting system, if a parties number of votes is not equal or close to their number of seats in parliament then the voters’ are being misrepresented. AMS is a PR system, which results in a party’s percentage of votes being more in line with the number of seats they win in parliament. The list MSPs ‘top up’ the constituency MSPs to make the overall result within a region approximately in line with the wishes of the electorate. In the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary elections Labour received 3 ‘top up’ MSPs to better reflect its level of support across the North East region as it received 44,000 in the 2nd vote. This shows that AMS allows for good representation in Parliament for voters. However, FPTP does not allow this same proportionality in Parliament, and in turn less representation of the electorate’s views as a whole. FPTP produces a disproportionate result. The two main parties have concentrated support in certain areas so win constituencies and seats. Smaller parties such as the Green Party and UKIP, with less concentrated support than Labour and the Conservatives, lose out under FPTP. For example, in 2005 Labour received 36% of the vote but 55% of the seats. The Lib Dems only received 10% of the seats with 22% of the vote. This shows AMS is more responsive to the will of the people as the composition of parliament will more closely represent the wishes of the electorate as it has an element of proportionality unlike
The AMS and FPTP are voting systems in use for the Scottish Parliament and House of Commons elections respectively. It can be argued that AMS gives voters more choice and better representation than FPTP, and in order to assess the validity of this argument 3 key indicators must be analysed: constituency links; proportionality and representation of smaller parties.
Proportionality is a key factor in assessing the fairness of a voting system, if a parties number of votes is not equal or close to their number of seats in parliament then the voters’ are being misrepresented. AMS is a PR system, which results in a party’s percentage of votes being more in line with the number of seats they win in parliament. The list MSPs ‘top up’ the constituency MSPs to make the overall result within a region approximately in line with the wishes of the electorate. In the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary elections Labour received 3 ‘top up’ MSPs to better reflect its level of support across the North East region as it received 44,000 in the 2nd vote. This shows that AMS allows for good representation in Parliament for voters. However, FPTP does not allow this same proportionality in Parliament, and in turn less representation of the electorate’s views as a whole. FPTP produces a disproportionate result. The two main parties have concentrated support in certain areas so win constituencies and seats. Smaller parties such as the Green Party and UKIP, with less concentrated support than Labour and the Conservatives, lose out under FPTP. For example, in 2005 Labour received 36% of the vote but 55% of the seats. The Lib Dems only received 10% of the seats with 22% of the vote. This shows AMS is more responsive to the will of the people as the composition of parliament will more closely represent the wishes of the electorate as it has an element of proportionality unlike