Notes · PoliticsUK · A-Levels

Elections and Referendums

Elections translate votes into representation and government, and the choice of electoral system shapes party systems, proportionality and the type of government produced. This topic examines the functions of elections, how First Past the Post works and its effects, the other systems used in the UK, the electoral-reform debate, and the use and impact of referendums.

5 sections~22 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 3 · Advanced 1

T·0777 / 18

Exam profile

AO1 · Demonstrate knowledge of the functions of elections, FPTP and the other UK electoral systems, and referendumsAO2 · Analyse how different systems convert votes into seats and shape party systems and governmentsAO3 · Evaluate whether FPTP should be replaced and the impact of referendums, reaching a substantiated judgement

Operators:explain and analyseevaluateto what extentanalyse and evaluate this statementcalculate

basic level

AS-Level expects how FPTP works and the basic features of the other UK systems.

higher level

The full A-Level requires sustained evaluation of electoral reform and the impact of referendums, and comparison of systems, reaching a judgement.

Depth

Text

Contents · 5 sections

Elections and Referendums

The functions of elections#

FoundationAQA 7152/1 Section B: Elections and referendumsDfE GCE Politics subject content

The functions of elections

Fig. 1Elections perform several functions; systems differ in how well they perform each, which drives the reform debate.

Elections are the central mechanism of representative democracy, and a strong answer can name and explain the several functions they perform rather than treating them as simply 'choosing MPs'. The first function is representation: elections choose representatives who stand for and act on behalf of the electorate, connecting citizens to the political system. The second is the formation of government: in the UK, the general election determines which party (or coalition) has the Commons majority and therefore forms the government, so voters indirectly choose the executive. These two functions - representation and government formation - can pull against each other, since a system good at producing strong single-party government may represent the range of opinion poorly, a tension central to the reform debate.

Elections also perform functions of accountability and participation. Accountability means that governments and representatives must submit themselves to the judgement of the voters at regular intervals and can be removed - the knowledge that they face re-election disciplines those in power and gives citizens a peaceful means of dismissing a government they no longer support. Participation means that elections are the principal way most citizens engage in politics, exercising their democratic right and expressing their preferences; a high, broad turnout gives the system legitimacy and involvement, while low turnout weakens both.

Further functions complete the picture. Elections confer legitimacy: a government chosen through free and fair elections has the authority to govern and to make binding decisions, because it rests on the consent of the governed - this is why even powerful governments seek the mandate an election provides. Elections perform an educative function, since campaigns inform and engage citizens about issues and choices, raising political awareness. And they serve elite recruitment, selecting and testing the politicians who will form the government and the political class, and providing a route by which new leaders and ideas enter the system.

Understanding the functions matters because different electoral systems perform them differently, which frames the whole topic. A majoritarian system such as FPTP is strong on producing decisive, accountable single-party government but weaker on proportional representation of opinion; a proportional system represents opinion accurately but may produce coalition governments that blur accountability. Evaluating any electoral system therefore means asking how well it performs these functions and which functions one prioritises. The functions of elections are the criteria against which the systems are judged - so a good answer keeps returning to them when comparing FPTP with the alternatives.

Worked example

The tension between representation and strong government

Explain why elections can struggle to deliver both accurate representation and strong government.

Accurate representation
A system that represents opinion accurately (proportional) gives seats in proportion to votes, so many parties gain representation.
Strong government
A system that produces decisive single-party government (majoritarian, like FPTP) usually gives the largest party a seat bonus, over-representing it.
The trade-off
Proportionality tends to produce coalitions (weaker, negotiated government); a seat bonus tends to produce disproportionate but decisive single-party government.
Implication
No system maximises both - the choice reflects which function is prioritised, representation or effective government.

Result: Elections struggle to deliver both because accurate representation (proportionality) tends to produce coalition government, while strong single-party government tends to require a disproportionate seat bonus - so the choice of system is a choice about which function to prioritise.

Typical mistakes

Reducing elections to 'choosing MPs' and missing the wider functions (accountability, legitimacy, government formation).
Failing to use the functions as criteria when later comparing electoral systems.

Active revision

Explain and analyse three functions of elections in a representative democracy. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

First Past the Post: how it works and its effects#

StandardAQA 7152/1 Section B: Elections and referendumsDfE GCE Politics subject content

How FPTP can distort votes into seats (illustrative)

Fig. 2A worked ILLUSTRATIVE example (not real results): under FPTP the largest party's seat share exceeds its vote share, while a smaller party with spread-out support is under-represented.

First Past the Post (FPTP) is the system used for UK general elections, and understanding exactly how it works is the basis for analysing its effects. The UK is divided into single-member constituencies; in each, voters cast one vote for one candidate, and the candidate with the most votes - a simple plurality, not necessarily a majority - wins the seat. This means a candidate can win with well under half the votes if the opposition is divided, and that only the winning votes in each constituency count towards a seat - all other votes are, in the technical sense, 'wasted'. The party that wins the most seats (not necessarily the most votes) across all constituencies normally forms the government.

FPTP produces a set of characteristic effects that a good answer can explain and evaluate. Its most-discussed feature is disproportionality: because seats are won constituency by constituency on a plurality, the national share of seats a party wins often diverges sharply from its share of votes. Large parties with concentrated or plurality support are typically over-represented (winning a higher share of seats than of votes), while smaller parties whose support is spread thinly are severely under-represented, and parties with concentrated regional support can win seats out of proportion to their national vote. The result is that the translation of votes into seats is systematically unequal - the central charge against FPTP.

FPTP also shapes the party system and the type of government produced. By penalising small parties and rewarding large ones, it tends to sustain a two-party system in which two major parties dominate and alternate in power, and to squeeze out third and minor parties (except those with concentrated regional support). It usually manufactures a single-party majority government from a minority of the national vote, giving strong, stable, decisive government able to carry out its programme - the feature its defenders most prize. It also produces many 'safe seats' that rarely change hands, concentrating campaigning on a few marginal seats and arguably depressing participation where votes seem not to count.

Evaluating FPTP means weighing these effects, and the section should set up the reform debate. In its favour, FPTP is simple, produces a clear constituency link (each area has one identifiable MP), tends to deliver strong single-party government and accountability (voters can decisively remove a government), and keeps out extremist parties. Against it, its disproportionality means millions of votes do not translate into representation, it produces governments elected on a minority of the vote, it wastes votes and entrenches safe seats, and it under-represents smaller parties and, arguably, distorts the popular will. The strongest answers treat these strengths and weaknesses as the criteria for the reform debate, and are ready to reach a judgement about whether the decisive government FPTP delivers is worth its cost in representation.

Worked example

Reading disproportionality from a hypothetical result

In a hypothetical election Party A wins 45% of votes and 60% of seats, Party B 35% of votes and 34% of seats, and Party C 20% of votes and 6% of seats. Explain what this shows about FPTP.

Compare A
Party A: 45% of votes but 60% of seats - over-represented by 15 percentage points, the typical seat bonus for the largest party.
Compare C
Party C: 20% of votes but only 6% of seats - severely under-represented, the fate of a smaller party with spread-out support.
Identify the pattern
FPTP inflates the seat share of the largest party and deflates that of small, dispersed parties - systematic disproportionality.
Draw the implication
A party can win a majority of seats (and govern) on a minority of votes, and many votes do not translate into representation - the core critique.

Result: The hypothetical figures show FPTP's characteristic distortion: the largest party is over-represented (45% of votes to 60% of seats) and a smaller dispersed party is under-represented (20% of votes to 6% of seats), so a minority of votes can produce a majority of seats - illustrating why critics call FPTP disproportionate.

Typical mistakes

Saying the winning candidate needs a majority under FPTP - only a plurality (the most votes) is required.
Confusing the share of VOTES with the share of SEATS - the gap between them is the core of the disproportionality critique.

Active revision

Evaluate the view that First Past the Post should be retained for UK general elections. (25 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification (AQA)

The other UK electoral systems#

StandardAQA 7152/1 Section B: Elections and referendumsDfE GCE Politics subject content

Classifying UK electoral systems

Fig. 3UK systems fall into three families - majoritarian, proportional and mixed - each producing characteristic outcomes.

Although FPTP is used for Westminster, the introduction of devolution and other reforms since 1997 means the UK now uses several different electoral systems, which can be classified into three families. Majoritarian (or plurality) systems, such as FPTP and the Supplementary Vote, aim to produce a decisive winner and tend towards disproportional but strong single-party outcomes. Proportional systems, such as the Single Transferable Vote, aim to match seats to votes as closely as possible. Mixed systems, such as the Additional Member System, combine a constituency (majoritarian) element with a proportional top-up. Being able to place each system in its family, and explain how it works and what it produces, is the core knowledge of this section.

The Additional Member System (AMS), used for the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd, is a mixed system. Voters cast two votes: one for a constituency representative elected by FPTP, and one for a party list in a larger regional area. The regional list seats are allocated to 'top up' the constituency results so that each party's overall share of seats more closely matches its share of the list vote - correcting much of the disproportionality of the constituency element. AMS keeps a constituency link while producing broadly proportional outcomes, though it creates two classes of representative (constituency and list) and tends to produce coalition or minority governments.

The Single Transferable Vote (STV), used for elections in Northern Ireland and Scottish local government, is a proportional system based on multi-member constituencies. Voters rank candidates in order of preference, and candidates are elected when they reach a quota; surplus votes above the quota, and the votes of eliminated candidates, are transferred according to voters' next preferences until all seats are filled. STV produces highly proportional results and gives voters a wide, ranked choice of candidates (including between candidates of the same party), but it is more complex and its multi-member constituencies weaken the single-member link. The quota used is the Droop quota, calculated from the total valid votes and the number of seats.

The Supplementary Vote (SV), formerly used for elected mayors, is a majoritarian system for single-office elections. Voters mark a first and a second choice; if no candidate wins an outright majority of first preferences, all but the top two candidates are eliminated and the second preferences of their supporters are added to the top two, so the winner has broader support than a bare plurality. Understanding this family of systems - majoritarian (FPTP, SV), proportional (STV) and mixed (AMS) - and the outcomes each produces (disproportional/strong government vs proportional/coalition) equips a student to compare systems and to evaluate the case for reforming Westminster's FPTP, the task of the next section.

\text{Droop quota} = \left\lfloor \dfrac{\text{total valid votes}}{\text{seats} + 1} \right\rfloor + 1

The Droop quota (STV)

Under STV, a candidate is elected on reaching the quota. The Droop quota is the smallest number of votes that guarantees election for the available seats - the total valid votes divided by (seats plus one), rounded DOWN, plus one. Surplus votes above the quota are transferred to voters' next preferences.

Worked example

Calculating the Droop quota

In an STV election a constituency has 3 seats and 60,000 valid votes. Calculate the Droop quota.

State the formula
Droop quota = floor(total valid votes / (seats + 1)) + 1.
Substitute
V = 60,000 and s = 3, so seats + 1 = 4.
Divide
60,000 / 4 = 15,000; the floor of 15,000 is 15,000.
Add one
15,000 + 1 = 15,001 votes.

Result: The Droop quota is 15,001 votes: any candidate reaching 15,001 is elected, because at most three candidates can each achieve this figure from 60,000 votes, guaranteeing exactly the three seats are filled.

Typical mistakes

Confusing AMS (mixed - two votes, list top-up) with STV (proportional - ranked, multi-member, quota).
Describing a system's mechanics without linking them to its effects (proportionality, government type, constituency link).

Active revision

Explain and analyse three ways in which the Single Transferable Vote differs from First Past the Post. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

Comparing systems and the electoral-reform debate#

AdvancedAQA 7152/1 Section B: Elections and referendumsDfE GCE Politics subject content

FPTP versus a proportional system (STV)

Fig. 4FPTP delivers strong government and a constituency link; STV delivers proportionality and choice - the reform trade-off.

The electoral-reform debate asks whether Westminster should replace FPTP with a more proportional system, and a strong answer compares the systems against the functions of elections rather than simply listing pros and cons. The case for reform rests on FPTP's failings: its disproportionality means seats do not match votes, so millions of votes are 'wasted' and governments are elected on a minority of the popular vote; it produces many safe seats and concentrates real contests in a few marginals, arguably depressing participation; and it under-represents smaller parties, distorting the range of opinion in Parliament. A proportional system (such as STV) or a mixed one (such as AMS) would make votes count more equally, represent opinion more accurately, and could re-engage voters whose votes currently seem not to matter.

The case against reform, and for retaining FPTP, is equally serious and must be given full weight. FPTP is defended for producing strong, stable, single-party government able to carry out a clear programme and be held decisively accountable at the next election - whereas proportional systems tend to produce coalition or minority governments, in which policy is decided by post-election bargaining between parties rather than by voters, potentially blurring accountability and giving small parties disproportionate leverage as coalition kingmakers. FPTP also preserves a strong single-member constituency link, keeps out extremist parties, and is simple to understand and use. Defenders argue that the decisive, accountable government FPTP delivers is worth the cost in proportionality.

Comparing the systems concretely sharpens the debate. STV maximises proportionality and voter choice but at the cost of complexity, multi-member constituencies (weakening the single-MP link) and a tendency to coalition. AMS offers a compromise - broadly proportional outcomes while retaining a constituency element - but creates two classes of representative and still tends towards coalition or minority government. The devolved bodies, elected by AMS and STV, demonstrate that proportional systems work in practice in the UK and produce more representative legislatures, but also that they routinely produce coalition or minority governments - the trade-off in action. A good answer uses these real examples of the UK's own systems to test the abstract arguments.

Reaching a judgement means deciding which functions of elections to prioritise, since no system optimises all of them. If one prioritises accurate representation and the equal weight of votes, the case for a proportional or mixed system is strong; if one prioritises strong, decisive, accountable single-party government and the constituency link, the case for FPTP is strong. A sophisticated answer weighs these priorities explicitly, uses the evidence of the UK's own proportional systems, and reaches a clear conclusion - for example that the disproportionality and wasted votes of FPTP are a serious democratic defect that a mixed system such as AMS could remedy while preserving much of the constituency link and decisiveness, making AMS a stronger compromise than either pure FPTP or full STV. The essential skill is a reasoned line to a judgement, grounded in the functions of elections.

Worked example

Model essay plan: should FPTP be replaced?

Plan a 25-mark answer evaluating whether FPTP should be replaced by a proportional system.

Introduction and thesis
Frame the debate around the functions of elections; signal a judgement - a mixed system (AMS) is a stronger compromise than pure FPTP or full STV.
The case for reform
FPTP is disproportional, wastes votes, produces minority-vote governments and safe seats, and under-represents small parties - votes should count equally.
The case against
FPTP delivers strong, accountable single-party government and a constituency link; proportional systems produce coalitions, post-election bargaining and small-party leverage.
Use UK evidence
The devolved AMS/STV bodies show proportional systems work in the UK and are more representative, but routinely produce coalition or minority governments - the trade-off in practice.
Judgement
Conclude that FPTP's disproportionality is a serious defect, but that AMS - broadly proportional while keeping a constituency element - is a stronger compromise than either pure FPTP or full STV.

Result: A top-band plan compares the systems against the functions of elections, uses the UK's own AMS/STV bodies as evidence, and judges that FPTP's disproportionality justifies reform but that a mixed system (AMS) best balances representation, the constituency link and workable government - a reasoned line to a conclusion.

Typical mistakes

Assuming proportional systems are simply 'fairer' without weighing the cost in coalition government and accountability.
Listing systems' features without comparing them against the functions of elections or reaching a judgement.

Active revision

'First Past the Post should be replaced by a proportional system for UK general elections.' Analyse and evaluate this statement. (25 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification (AQA)

Referendums and direct democracy in the UK#

StandardAQA 7152/1 Section B: Elections and referendumsDfE GCE Politics subject content

Arguments for and against referendums

Fig. 5Referendums give direct legitimacy on major questions but risk oversimplification, capture and the erosion of representative democracy.

A referendum is a vote in which the electorate is asked to decide a specific question directly, and it is the principal expression of direct democracy in the UK's otherwise representative system. Referendums have been used increasingly since the 1970s, and they have typically been reserved for major constitutional questions rather than routine policy. The most significant include the 1975 referendum on continued membership of the European Communities, the 1997-98 referendums that endorsed devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the 2011 referendum on changing the Westminster voting system (the Alternative Vote), the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, and the 2016 referendum on membership of the European Union. Knowing what these referendums decided, and that they concerned fundamental constitutional questions, is the factual basis of the section.

The arguments for referendums draw on the strengths of direct democracy. Referendums give the people a direct say and the purest legitimacy on major questions - decisions of great constitutional weight are settled by the citizens themselves rather than by politicians who may have a self-interest. They can settle divisive issues that cut across party lines and would otherwise paralyse the political system, provide a clear popular mandate for major change, and engage and educate citizens, sometimes producing high turnout and intense participation. Supporters argue that on fundamental questions - who governs, the shape of the constitution - the people, not Parliament, should decide.

The arguments against referendums draw on the weaknesses of direct democracy and the strengths of representative government. Referendums reduce complex, multi-dimensional questions to a single binary choice, which can oversimplify and mislead; campaigns can be dominated by well-funded interests, emotion or misinformation rather than reasoned deliberation; and a bare majority can impose its will on a large minority (the 'tyranny of the majority'), with results that may be close, divisive and hard to implement. They can also undermine parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy, since a government may feel bound by a referendum result even when it believes it unwise, and turnout and understanding may be low. Critics argue that complex decisions are better made by informed, accountable representatives who can deliberate and compromise.

Evaluating the impact of referendums on UK politics is the section's analytical demand, and it can be argued carefully. Referendums have had profound effects - they have reshaped the constitution (devolution), decided the UK's place in the world (EU membership), and entrenched a new expectation that the people decide fundamental constitutional questions, so that 'popular sovereignty' now sits alongside parliamentary sovereignty. Whether this is healthy is contested: supporters see a welcome deepening of democracy and legitimacy on the questions that matter most, while critics see the outsourcing of difficult decisions, the erosion of representative democracy, and the risk of divisive, poorly-informed outcomes. The strongest answers judge referendums to be a valuable but double-edged addition to UK democracy - legitimate and appropriate for major constitutional questions, but a blunt and risky instrument that should be used sparingly and not for complex or routine matters.

Worked example

Model essay plan: have referendums been good for UK democracy?

Plan a 25-mark answer evaluating whether referendums have been good for UK democracy.

Introduction and thesis
Note the growing use of referendums on constitutional questions; signal a judgement - valuable for major constitutional questions but a blunt instrument to use sparingly.
The case for
Direct say and pure legitimacy on fundamental questions; settle cross-party divisive issues; provide a clear mandate; can engage and educate citizens with high turnout.
The case against
Oversimplify complex questions into binaries; campaigns captured by money, emotion or misinformation; majority tyranny over a large minority; undermine parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy.
Assess the impact
Referendums have reshaped the constitution and entrenched popular sovereignty alongside parliamentary sovereignty - a profound but double-edged change.
Judgement
Conclude that referendums are legitimate and appropriate for major constitutional questions but a blunt, risky instrument for complex or routine matters - so their use should be limited, not expanded.

Result: A top-band plan weighs the direct-legitimacy case against the oversimplification and representative-democracy critiques, assesses the impact on sovereignty, and judges that referendums are a valuable but double-edged addition to UK democracy - appropriate for fundamental constitutional questions but to be used sparingly.

Typical mistakes

Treating referendums as legally binding in the UK - they are technically advisory, though politically near-binding on major questions.
Ignoring the impact of referendums on parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy in the evaluation.

Active revision

Evaluate the view that referendums have been good for UK democracy. (25 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

References & sources

Sources

Department for Education

GCE AS and A level subject content for politics

AQA

AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification

Elections and Referendums

5 sections~22 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 3 · Advanced 1

Elections and Referendums

Key points

The tension between representation and strong government

Key points

Reading disproportionality from a hypothetical result

Key points

Calculating the Droop quota

Key points

Model essay plan: should FPTP be replaced?

Key points

Model essay plan: have referendums been good for UK democracy?

Sources

Elections and Referendums

Key points

The tension between representation and strong government

Key points

Reading disproportionality from a hypothetical result

Key points

Calculating the Droop quota

Key points

Model essay plan: should FPTP be replaced?

Key points

Model essay plan: have referendums been good for UK democracy?

Sources