Lesson video

Hello, my name's Mrs. Hastings.

Welcome to today's lesson, which is from the unit: What are the different ways we can become involved in politics? And today's lesson is called: Should we reform the voting system? And this is a really interesting question and one that's open to a lot of discussion and a lot of debate.

So I really hope that you get involved in those conversations and come to your own conclusions as we go through this learning journey together.

Good luck.

So the outcome for today's lesson is that by the end of it, you should be able to critically assess whether we should reform the voting system for general elections in the UK.

So we're gonna focus on general elections and whether it should be reformed.

There are four key terms in today's session, so I'm just gonna run those through with you.

So the first one is election: this is the voting process to select a person for a public position.

First-Past-The-Post: this is the voting system used in the UK to elect members of some local councils and members of Parliament, whereby the candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins.

Proportional system: this is an electoral system where political parties get a number of seats in Parliament that more evenly matches the percentage of votes they receive in an election.

And reform: that means make changes in something, especially in institutional practise in order to improve it.

So there are three parts to our learning journey today.

Three learning cycles.

The first one is, What is First-Past-The-Post? Secondly, What alternative systems do we use in the UK? And then the third learning cycle is, Should we reform the voting system in the UK? So let's crack on with our first learning cycle today.

So what is First-Past-The-Post? So there are lots of different types of elections held in the UK.

For example: general elections to elect Members of Parliament, MPs to the House of Commons.

Local elections to elect local councillors including city, borough and county councils.

Devolved Parliament and Assembly elections to Scottish Parliament, Welsh Parliament, the Senedd, and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

And mayoral elections.

In some cities, elections are held to choose a directly elected mayor.

Police and crime commissioner, PCC elections, held to elect individuals responsible for overseeing police services in certain regions.

Referendums, these are public votes on a specific issue or constitutional change, such as the Brexit referendum in 2016.

By-elections.

These are held between general elections to fill vacancies that arise when MPs or councillors resign or pass away.

And each of these elections serves a different purpose and is governed by specific rules depending on the region and level of government.

So they all may have different voting systems in those elections.

Since 1950, all general elections in the UK have been decided using the First-Past-The-Post system, it is sometimes referred to as simple plurality because a candidate only has to win by one more vote than their nearest rival.

And this is how it works: So the UK is divided into 650 constituencies with roughly the same number of voters in each.

They are decided by the Independent Boundary Commission and voted on by Parliament.

So your constituency is a geographical area in the UK and each of those geographical areas roughly contains the same number of voters.

So they're not necessarily the same number of geographical size, the same geographical size, but they do contain roughly the same number of people of voting age and eligibility.

Each constituency is represented by a single MP.

So each constituency returns one MP to Parliament.

On election day, voters cast their vote for the candidate they want to represent their constituency.

This candidate will either belong to a political party or be independent.

The candidate with the most votes, a plurality, becomes an MP.

So remember that they only need to get one more vote than their nearest rival to become an MP.

The party with a majority of MPs, so at least 326, is invited by the monarch to form a government.

So let's check our understanding of all that information that we've learned so far.

So statements below are all incorrect.

I want you to identify the one mistake in each statement and correct it.

One: The UK is divided into 450 constituencies with roughly the same number of voters.

Two: The candidate with the fewest votes, a plurality, becomes an MP.

And three: the party with a majority of MPs, at least 326, is invited by the Prime Minister to form a government.

So there is one mistake in each of those statements, find it and correct it.

Well done for that.

So the mistakes were: The UK is divided into 650, not 450 constituencies with roughly the same number of voters.

The candidate with the most votes, not the fewest, a plurality, becomes an MP and the party with a majority of MPs, at least 326, is invited by the monarch, not the Prime Minister, to form a government.

So well done if you correctly identified the mistakes.

So what are the key features of the First-Past-The-Post system? So we've looked at how it works, what the practical side of it is, so what does that result in? What's the impact and what are the features around it? So firstly, it creates a two-party system with only really two parties having a realistic chance of forming a government.

So in the UK, this is the Labour or Conservative Party.

So it leads to what we call a two horse race.

It can create safe seats where a constituency is likely to always vote for a specific party due to a concentration of voters that align with that party.

So for example, in the 2019 UK General Election, the Conservative Party won 13 seats with over 70% of the popular vote in those constituencies where they won the 13 seats.

And that shows that those are a strongly safe seats for the Conservative Party.

It can also lead to swing seats.

This is where a seat can swing back and forth, change back and forth between political parties and is highly contested during an election campaign.

So this can mean that parties might concentrate a lot of their campaign efforts in that seat.

For instance, Croydon Central has swung between Conservative and Labour, with results being as narrow as 1.

1% between the winning party and the losing party.

First-Past-The-Post also usually leads to strong, stable government with one party having a sizable majority.

For example, in the 2024 General Election, the Labour Party achieved a significant victory, securing 411 out of the 650 seats, granting them a 174 seat majority.

This majority is the largest for any party since 1997 and it can also lead to a party getting a winner's bonus where they win a higher percentage of the seats than the proportion of votes gained.

Labour's substantial majority in 2024 was achieved with only 33.

7% of the national vote, the lowest of any majority party in British history.

And so the winner's bonus basically gave the Labour Party 63% of the seats in the House of Commons, despite them only getting 33.

7% of the popular vote across the UK.

So it completely sways and imbalances it in favour, the First-Past-The Post system, in favour of the Labour Party in the 2024 General Election.

So let's check our understanding.

Which of the following are features of the First-Past-The-Post system? It creates safe seats, weak and unstable governments, lead to swing seats, multi-party system, simple plurality and winners bonus.

So which of those are features of the First-Past-The-Post system? So hopefully you correctly identified the following are features of the First-Past-The-Post system.

So it creates safe seats, leads to swing seats, simple plurality and the winner's bonus.

Well done.

So onto our practise task for this learning cycle.

I would like you to look at the table of election results in the UK and identify which, if any, party would have been invited to form a government.

So three columns: you've got general election, results, the number of seats won, and the last column is left blank for you to fill in: Which party won a majority? So in 2015 the Conservatives got 330; Labour got 232; Liberal Democrats got eight; and others, other political parties received 80 in total.

So from a wide range of political parties.

In 2017, the Conservatives won 317 seats; Labour, 262; Liberal Democrats, 12; others, 59.

2019, Conservatives, 365; Labour, 202, Liberal Democrats, 11; and others 59.

And in 2024, the Conservatives 121; Labour 411; Liberal Democrats 72; and others, 46.

So which party won a majority? Fill in that last column.

Pause the video whilst you complete that task.

Well done for completing that task.

So your completed table should look like this.

In 2015, the Conservatives would have been asked to form a government.

They won a, well, they won a majority by four seats.

In 2017, the Conservatives were asked to form a government, they won 317 seats.

Now you will notice that that is not a majority, they didn't get the 326 seats needed.

So even though they were asked to form a government, they needed a supply and confidence agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party, a party based in Northern Ireland to be able to properly govern.

In 2019 however, the Conservatives were asked to form a government because they won a substantial majority with 365 seats.

And in 2024, the swing went to Labour and Labour won a significant landslide victory with 411 seats and were therefore asked to form a government.

So, well done if you accurately identified which party won, which party got a majority, and therefore, which party would have been invited to form a government.

Right.

Great.

So onto the second learning cycle for today's lesson; So what alternative systems do we use in the UK? So we use First-Past-The-Post for general elections, but are there alternative systems in other elections that we use? So other elections in the UK use more proportional systems for elections that result in greater proportional representation.

So for example, the Additional Member System, or AMS, is used for elections to the Scottish Parliament and Senedd, the Welsh Parliament; Single Transferrable Vote, STV is used for elections for the Northern Irish Assembly; and the Supplementary Vote was used for London Mayoral elections from 2000/2021; and for Police and Crime Commissioner elections.

So with the London Mayoral elections, actually they now use First-Past-The-Post, but until 2021 they used the Supplementary Vote.

So let's have a look at each of those and how they work and what they offer.

So how does AMS work? So we're gonna look at a case study of Scottish Parliament elections where there are 129 seats available.

In this election, voters cast two separate votes, one for a candidate to represent their constituency and a second for a party to represent their region.

And you can see an example of the ballot paper there.

So in the left hand column, you've got the constituency member vote with the name of the person, the candidate that you're wanting to vote for and which party they belong to.

And then in the right hand column, you've got the regional member vote.

So that just is listing the parties that there are available to vote for.

And so you don't necessarily know the candidate, and that's important in a second, that I'll explain now.

So Scotland is divided into 73 constituencies.

So the constituency candidates, the one you're voting for in the left hand column, is elected using the First-Past-The-Post system.

So it's the same as for general elections in the UK.

Then Scotland is divided into eight regions and after those constituency seats are decided, the remaining 56 regional seats, so seven per region, are allocated proportionally using the d'Hondt method, based on the votes each party receives.

So what that means is, if in the example here, the purple party receive the most number of votes or how many votes they receive, they will then get a certain proportion of regional representatives in the Scottish Parliament that they choose, the party, the purple party in this example, chooses from a list of candidates and the party decides which are their sort of top three for how many seats that they're being allocated, who they want to actually take those seats from the candidates that they have available.

So A MS leads to the following: So this is the impact of AMS. It can lead to a multi-party system.

So a number of parties have a realistic chance of forming a government; an increased chance of a minority or coalition government; smaller parties doing better in the regional vote as it is more proportional; and nationalist parties such as the Scottish National Party in Scotland have had greater success in their respected devolved body.

So SMPs are greater represented in the Scottish Parliament than they were in the 2024 General Election in the UK and in the UK Parliament, which is Westminster in London.

So let's check our understanding of AMS and what it is and how it works.

So I'd like you to indicate your answers with a tick if you think it's true or a cross if you think it is false.

So A: In an election, a voter casts two separate votes.

B: The constituency candidate is elected using SV.

C: Regional seats are decided using the d'Hondt method.

D: It creates a two party system favouring the main parties.

So which of those are true and which of those are false? So A: In an election, a voter casts two separate votes.

That is true.

B: The constituency candidate is elected using SV.

That is false.

Okay, it's used from First-Past-The-Post system.

Regional seats are decided using the d'Hondt method.

That is true.

D: Creates a two party system favouring the main parties.

That is false.

It usually leads to a multi-party system.

So the next example we're going to look at is the single transferrable vote.

So how does STV work? The case study we're gonna look at is Northern Ireland, their Assembly elections, Northern Ireland Assembly elections.

So Northern Ireland is divided into 18 regions and each region selects five candidates.

Multiple candidates from the same party can appear on a ballot paper.

The voter has one vote, so they have one ballot paper but they can rank the candidates in order of importance, and they can rank as many or as few as they wish.

So again, in the example that we've got here of the ballot paper for STV, this elector, voter has ranked all the candidates on the paper.

So they've given candidate C their first preference, candidate A their second, B their third, D their fourth, and E their fifth.

But they didn't have to put a number next to every candidate.

They could have just said, "I only really favour candidate C, so I'm just gonna put a number one next to candidate C" and left their paper as that, up to them.

You can do as many or as few votes as you wish.

Results are determined using the Droop quota, which is calculated by dividing the number of valid votes, so how many people actually voted in the election, depending on the election turnout, by the number of seats that are available plus one.

So for example, if there were a thousand people voted and there were five seats available, 1,000 divided by 5 = 200 + 1, so 201.

201 is the number of votes you'd need to receive to be elected.

Any candidate reaching that quota, based on the Droop quota wins a seat.

So in my example, anyone who'd got 201 or more votes would've automatically got a seat.

And if they got more than 201 votes, anything above 201, their votes are then redistributed to the voter's second choice candidate.

Any candidate who now reaches the quota wins a seat.

So in the ballot paper we were looking at, the first choice is candidate C.

Now let's say that person, candidate C got 201 seats votes, sorry, they got their 201 votes, that ballot paper was then redistributed to candidate A who was then given those votes above the 201.

So let's say candidate C got 20 more, 21, 221 votes.

So they've got 20 more votes than the 201.

Those 20 ballot papers are redistributed to the second choice candidate.

It's quite complicated and we'll look at some of the key features.

If any seats remain, but no one has reached a quota, the bottom candidate is eliminated and then their votes are redistributed to the next preference, the second preference on the ballot paper.

This continues until all the seats have been filled.

So STV leads to the following, it leads to a multi-party system as it is highly proportional.

It leads to power sharing, coalition, governments.

In Northern Ireland, this is often a coalition government which represents different parts of society.

For example, the Democratic Unionist Party, the DUP, or Sinn Fein.

So let's check our understanding about STV.

Again, I'd like you to identify whether each statement is true or false about STV, indicating your answers with a tick or cross.

Tick for true, cross for false.

A: In an election, a voter cast two separate votes.

B: multiple candidates from the same party can appear on a ballot paper.

C: The voter has one vote but makes a first and second preference.

D: It creates a multi-party system with coalition governments likely.

So A: in an election, a voter casts two separate votes, is incorrect.

There's one ballot paper, so one vote.

B: Multiple candidates from the same party can appear on a ballot paper.

That is correct.

C: The voter has one vote but makes a first and second preference.

That is incorrect.

That is false because they can put them into order of preference and they can do as many or as few numbers of preference as they like.

D: It creates a multi-party system with coalition governments likely.

That is true.

So the last alternative election voting system that we're going to look at is SV and we're gonna look at the London Mayoral elections that used SV from 2000 to 2021 and the Police and Crime Commissioner elections as well.

So SV, supplementary vote, the voter has one vote but is able to put a first and second choice on their ballot paper.

Once all the voters are cast, the first choice is accounted.

If anyone has 50% plus one or more, they are the winner and the election is over.

Okay, they've won a majority because they've got 50% plus one, that gives them a majority.

If no one has 50% plus one, all but the top two candidates are eliminated and their votes are then redistributed according to the voter's second choice on their ballot paper.

Someone will now have at least 50% plus one and they are declared the winner.

So SV leads the following: It leads to a two party system.

The second round eliminates all but the top two candidates and therefore that is more likely to favour the two main parties.

The single party government, there's little chance of smaller parties gaining power.

And if used more widely, it would likely create safe seats as parties would need a high concentration of voters to win.

So some of that is very similar or the same as the First-Past-The-Post system.

So let's have a look at our understanding about the supplementary vote system.

So identify whether each statement is true or false about SV.

Indicate your answers with a tick for true or cross for false.

A: In an election, a voter has one vote, but can make a first and second choice.

B: It's a voting system used in the London Mayoral elections.

C: It creates a multi-party system with coalition governments likely.

D: It favours smaller parties as it is proportional.

Okay, so A: In an election, a voter has one vote but can make a first and second choice.

That is true.

B: It is a voting system used in the London Mayoral elections.

That is false.

It was, from 2000 to 2021, but London Mayoral elections now use the First-Past-The-Post system.

C: It creates a multi-party system with coalition governments likely.

That is false.

It's likely to lead to a two party system and one party majority government if you use more widely.

D: It favours smaller parties as it is proportional.

That is also incorrect because of C.

It's likely to lead to multi-party system, sorry, a two party system with single governments, single party governments.

So I'd like you to discuss with your learning partner.

We've looked at the First-Past-The-Post system and we've looked at some more alternative, some alternative, more proportional voting systems. So what are the advantages of these alternative, more proportional voting systems like AMS or STV? Use your understanding of how they work and the features of the voting system.

What do you see are the advantages of that type of system, an alternative, more proportional system? Pause the video whilst you have your discussions.

So, well done for having those discussions.

So I asked you to discuss with your learning partner what are the advantages of alternative, more proportional voting systems like AMS or STV? So your discussions may have included the following key points: Alternative voting systems like Additional Member System, AMS and single transferrable vote, STV, offer fairer representation.

Voters can have more choices and vote for their preferred candidates.

These systems might help smaller parties and encourage a wider range of voices in elections.

And the results better reflect the majority of what people actually want.

So let's have a look at the third learning cycle.

Should we reform the voting system in the UK? So we've looked at lots of different types of voting systems and there have been frequent calls to reform the voting system for general elections in the UK.

There are several arguments put forward by those wanting to retain, to keep the First-Past-The-Post system for general elections, however, and it has created big debate amongst politically active people and political parties as well.

So supporters of the First-Past-The-Post system, people who want to keep the First-Past-The-Post system for general elections as the voting system, argue that it is simple and easy to understand how it works.

It gives a clear result leading to a strong, stable and legitimate government.

It is easy told them to account.

Each constituency has a representative in Parliament who should have a vested interest in that area.

It means that the two parties, the two main parties, so in the UK that's Labour and Conservative, they have to remain quite centrist on what's called the political spectrum, ensuring that they have broad appeal to win votes.

It keeps parties with more extremist views out of government.

And then it also means that the transfer of power is often quick and easy because it's easy to see who's won, who's got a majority, who's got 326 or more seats.

It allows that quick and easy transfer of power, meaning that the business of government can continue.

So let's check our understanding of the First-Past-The-Post system and why some people think that it should be retained for general elections.

So what are the missing words from each of the following arguments for retaining the First-Past-The-Post system? It is what and it is easy to understand how it works.

Each constituency has a what in Parliament who should have a vested interest in that area.

The two main parties have to remain centrist in their beliefs, ensuring they have what appeal to win votes.

So it is simple and it is easy to understand how it works.

Each constituency has a representative in Parliament who should have a vested interest in that area.

The two main parties have to remain centrist in their beliefs, ensuring they have broad appeal to win votes.

Well done if you've got those words right.

Those calling for reform to the voting system for general elections in the UK include the Liberal Democrat Party who are essentially seen as the third party in the UK, and the Green Party who have won seats in Parliament, but very few.

What arguments do you think that they might put forward for replacing the First-Past-The-Post system with an alternative, more proportional system? Pause the video and have a quick discussion with your learning partner about those arguments you think they might put forward.

So the advantages of a more proportional system, a more proportional voting system, are broadly the opposite to the advantages of the First-Past-The-Post system.

So whatever we see as the advantages of that, the more proportional systems would argue that that's a disadvantage and that there are advantages that are opposite to that.

So those wanting to reform the voting system and replace the First-Past-The-Post system with an alternative argue: First-Past-The-Post system results in wasted votes.

The winning candidate does not need to have a majority.

So a winning candidate might win a seat on 33% of the votes.

They might receive 33% of the vote.

Meaning that those people, the 67% who didn't vote for that candidate, might feel that their vote is wasted.

The winner's bonus can give a political party power without gaining a majority of votes.

And we saw that with the example of the 2024 General Election where the Labour Party only won 33% of the popular vote nationally, but it gave them 67%, sorry, 63% of the seats in Parliament.

So big difference between the popularity nationally versus the number of seats they then won.

It can lead to tactical voting with voters giving their vote to the least bad of the two main parties rather than their preferred party.

If they feel that their vote might be wasted, but they really dislike one of the two main parties, what they might do is lend their vote to another party in order that they don't feel it's completely wasted.

So for example, somebody might actually be a really strong supporter of the Green Party, but they know that their seat is contested between Labour and Conservative and it could be quite close.

So they might lend their vote, let's say, to the Labour Party, to try to prevent the Conservatives from winning their seat.

Safe seats reduces the value of an individual vote, going against the principle of equal votes for all.

Again, people might not feel that their vote really matters.

If their seat is a very safe seat for one of the two main parties and they want to vote for the other of the two main parties, again, let's say their seat is a safe Conservative seat, but they want to vote for Labour.

They might feel that it's a waste of time because Labour are never going to win that seat, or they vote for a smaller party like the Green Party, but again, they might feel like their vote is is completely wasted because the Green Party are never going to win.

So people might not feel valued in their voting and it might lead to apathy.

Voters may feel they're left with really little choice.

It is only a choice between one of the two main parties and an alternative system would give wider voter choice a more proportioned result and force parties to cooperate with each other.

The argument that coalitions are weak isn't necessarily true and actually it just forces parties to work together and actually have more broad appeal to the population.

So what are the missing words from each of the following arguments for reforming the voting system? First-Past-The-Post results in what votes because the winning candidate doesn't need to have a majority.

It can lead to what voting with voters giving their vote to the least bad of the two main parties, rather than their preferred party.

An alternative system would give wider voter what, and more proportional result and force parties to what with each other.

So First-Past-The-Post results in wasted votes because the winning candidate doesn't need to have a majority.

It can lead to tactical voting with voters giving their vote to the least bad of the two main parties, rather than their preferred party.

An alternative system would give wider voter choice, a more proportionate result and force parties to cooperate with each other.

So well done if you've got those missing words right.

So let's put what we have learned in this third learning cycle into practise and our overall understanding of today's lesson: Should we reform the voting system in the UK? I would like you to write an argument for or against reforming the voting system from First-Past-The-Post to an alternative, more proportional system for general elections.

So what's your opinion? Critically assess the arguments that we've looked at and write an argument for or against reforming the voting system.

Pause the video whilst you complete that task.

Well done for completing that task.

So I asked you the question, should we reform the voting system in the UK? If you argued the First-Past-The Post system should be retained, should be kept for general elections, your answer may have included: First-Past-The-Post, FPTP, should be retained because it is simple, easy to understand and provides clear outcomes.

In FPTP, the candidate with the most votes wins, which makes it easier for voters to know how their vote impacts the election.

In the UK general elections, FPTP leads to decisive results where one party often wins a clear majority, making it easier for the government to function without the need for coalitions.

This stability allows for faster decision making and accountability as the ruling party can directly implement its policies without needing to negotiate with smaller parties, which might happen in more complex systems like AMS or STV.

FTPTP also reduces the chances of extremist parties being elected.

Alternatively, if you argue that First-Past-The-Post should be reformed for general elections, your answer may have looked like this: The First-past-The-Post system should be replaced with a more proportional system because it often leads to unrepresentative results where many votes are considered wasted.

In FPTP, a candidate can win with just a small percentage of the vote, meaning that large numbers of people who voted for other candidates are not properly represented.

For example, in a UK general election, a party might win a majority of seats with less than half of the national vote, leaving a large portion of the population without representation.

Alternatively, systems like AMS and STV ensure that the proportion of seats each party receives is more closely aligned with the percentage of votes they get.

This gives voters more choice, smaller parties a stronger voice, and should lead to a government that better reflects the views of the entire population.

Well done for completing that task and well done for completing today's lesson.

So loads to think about, some quite complex ideas and getting your head around the different voting systems as well as thinking and critically assessing whether or not we should reform the voting system in the UK.

So in summary, there are many different types of voting system used for different types of elections across the UK.

First-Past-The-Post is a voting system where the candidate with the most votes wins, even without a majority.

In the UK we use First-Past-The-Post for general elections.

The UK uses more proportional voting systems like AMS in Scotland and Wales.

Some argue First-Past-The Post should be reformed to better reflect voters' true choices.

Opponents of First-Past-The-Post argue it can lead to wasted votes and may not reflect the views of all voters.

Others defend First-Past-The-Post for its simplicity, fearing reforms may complicate results.

As I said, well done for today's lesson.

I hope you've enjoyed it and I look forward to seeing you again soon.