Electoral Changes & Party Leaders' Impact

Task 1: Changes of Electoral System of Westminster and its impact on Voters’ Behavior

It is important to identify that Westminster is located in the House of Parliament. Within the Westminster, major political decisions are developed here for the State of England. Currently, according to Eggers and Spirling (2016), the electoral process of Westminster is conducted after every five years through its system known as First Past the Post (FPTP). This is because the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition came up with new terms regarding parliaments. Since the FPTP operates based on the plurality of votes, the votes are casts in the constituency whereby each person is supposed to vote for a representative from his/her constituency .The leading party from the constituencies votes gets the advantage of attaining the governmental power.

For centuries, according to Colomer (2016), the electoral system of Westminster has relied on First Past the Post System, a system where the majority elected members (representatives) of six hundred and fifty constituencies in United Kingdom. Currently the Westminster electoral system has been attested that it has developed a democratic deficit and the manner on representation. Such claims have been echoed that the Westminster electoral systems need significant and dire amendments so that the manner elections are being held in the UK be democratic. The main issues within the Westminster electoral system is that it does not possess the duty in making sure that there exists most representation for the citizens of UK.

Any form of changes on the electoral system of Westminster would be greatly affected as the national territory made up of constituencies represented by members of parliament who are elected by the citizens. Eggers and Spirling (2016), researches that the number of votes garnered by a member as long as they are more than those of the competitor, the member is deemed as the winner. The winners of each constituency make up the Westminster Parliament, by look at the 2015 general elections. Colomer (2016) identifies that members of the majority party; that is the conservative party attained a total of 36.9% out of the total share and that was three hundred and thirty-one seats in the Westminster Parliament. The United Kingdom Independent Party attained a 12.5% to the total votes casted, subjecting it to be the third biggest party but only attained a single seat in parliament. It is clear that such representation of a party and provision of a single seat to a third largest party is undemocratic, thus depicting that the Westminster electoral system is a failure in UK that thrives on democracy. Therefore, a change of the electoral system should facilitate a million of UK voters’ voices within the system is not the only ones existing in the par. The change would thence allow over four million United Kingdom Independent Party voters currently represented by a single member of parliament to have more representatives in the Westminster parliament.

The change of the Westminister electoral system has been supported to have effectively represented groups and effectively kept out extremist parties from existing into the UK political mainstream. Arguments collected by Hanretty et al. (2017) have further echoed that proportional frameworks of voting exposes parliament to radical individuals and ideas that are likely to endanger the UK democracy instead of fixing it. There were surveys that were conducted back in the year 2010 on the British elections, whereby the Mock alternatives vote election of non-partisan where about thirteen thousand individuals participated. The participants acquired twenty five seats, whereby a second choice vote from a party that has now been labeled a far right as well as a fascist group supporter is likely to facilitate a winning candidate to over a mark of fifty percent. According to analyst it could have facilitated the mention group to acquire several seats in the parliament. It was a sheer projection that extremist parties would steer their way to the political mainstream and earn a decisive voice in the legislation the parliament passes or does not pass that have influence on the democracy of the United Kingdom attest Rohrschneider and Whitefield (2012). However, these voices were argued that they represented the vulnerable and the most ignored communities that are less represented, thus has discouraged participation. Therefore, it can be identified that most of the seats acquired via the Westminster electoral system are safe constituent seats, to serve a purpose and that is to earn a majority vote in the parliament, and the capacity of the large parties to focus their support in defined geographical localities, which should be the opposite, where the fascist group must be part of the UK political system that steers forward their genuine agendas.

It can be identified that since the year 1945, a third of the parliament has been constantly been held by a single party due to the electoral system of the Westminster according to Threlfall (2010). From the year 1970, the same party increased its members to half leaving the UK in a loathsomely condition, whereby the geographical area of a voter determines if a voter’s voice was heard or not, since the majoritarian system sponsored by the Westminster electoral system failed. Therefore, the change of the electoral system would ensure that irrespective of the geographical location of a voter, all voters would be equally represented in the parliament and their voices regarded as important as those of the majority party.

Task 2: Analysis on the effect of Party Leaders on voters’ choices

According to Bakker et al (2015), the popularity of party leaders has a fairly substantial influence on the vote in most political frameworks and consequently on the electoral processes. The phenomenon also known as ‘electoral face of presidentialization’ has had a larger impact in most democracies across the globe. In the ever adjusting political surrounding, political leaders are in most cases assumed to impact individual vote choices and cumulative election results via their extensively diffused public images, that is, via the fabricated intellectual representations that, partially in a minimal usual manner, a lot of the citizens dispense with others concerning these party leaders.

The socio-cognitive and psycho-political interpretation of an image details for a comprehension of the leadership aspect as an ephemeral and communication-linked descriptive variable of the vote. From this informative outlook, Bittner (2011) identifies that a party leader impact can be largely be considered as an added value, in electoral terms, that a particular party leader and a candidate is capable of influencing his or her party or a coalition via the potency of his or her disguise as assessed at that particular time.

To further comprehend the effect of party leader on voters’ choices, three factors will provide more light, these are; structural constraints, the spatial context of the election made up of the institutional context, political context and media context. In institutional circumstances, where by the government, the level of election and the structure of choice, where voters make decisions based on intrinsic effects as well as monocratic office. Hix and Noury (2016) identifies that voters choose directly for a national candidate, making him or her personal in nature, but also several other motivations that surpass an assessment of a party leader as a candidate can also effect the voter’s decision. Therefore, an institutional incentive can be seen as a factor that influences how voters decide. Party leader who aspires such high-end position on a political mileage for a bigger office such as that of a president will automatically influence the voter’s choice. The idea that a party leader would represent them in a high office motivates voters to affiliate their choice irrespective of lack of ideologies.

Political context basically is the durability features of the national political system, more in sense of political dynamics rather than in the institutional circumstances. One of the features is the presence of strong and stable party loyalties that are promoted by an extensive period of party framework, or the presence of innovative procedure of partisan affiliated claims Pilet and Cross (2014). Voters that are more aligned with a political party are less manipulated by the image of the party leader. It means that voters vote for the party irrespective of who is the leader of that particular party. It is identified in more advanced democracies or nations that have high levels of party assimilation; the effect of the party leader is less of their concern. You find that such a party leader shares non-ideological content that are of general focus on shared ‘valence issues’ that are constructed around objectives such as security, economic prosperity, full employment that are most of them are the common manifestos of the political party. Such leaders are aware than the emphasis of these manifestos would influence voters choices.

The characteristics of a nations’ media structure or the media circumstance are an additional set of requirements that abstractly promote or restrict the effect of leaders on the vote. Among the various features that identify a media structure and pave way to compare media structures of various countries and how they play a role on how party leaders influence voters’ choice. It can be viewed that there is a degree in which the public depend on media, particularly television news on political coverage offered by major networks researches Bos et al. (2011). The role of the media on the adjusting information surrounding, the ideological or partisan leaning on a particular media companies, not leaving the scope of negative media coverage that is devoted towards politicians will influence how voters view their party leaders. Such analogy is quite effective in nations where its citizens are highly dependent of media content for their political information, since televisions are the media unto which symbolic and cognitive domination of the image of party leaders in an election campaign are produced. A party leader capable of articulating his or her content via the commercial leaders is guaranteed of a wider and fragmented campaign capable of influencing voters according to sacerdotal journalism.

Task 3: Evaluate the arguments for and against introducing extensive state funding for British political parties

Regulatory frameworks have previously been introduced on funding of British political parties. It can be traced back as a reform depicted as Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA) of 2000 that originated from all political parties that agreed on the need to address the public concern on the issues of political parties funding by the government identify Cross and Katz (2013). The Act however effective it was it did not provide lasting solutions towards political parties funding as from the years 2004 to 2007, more changes were considered and the crowning of these changes were under Sir Hayden Phillips who was a senior civil servant in Britain, but they failed due to failure for political parties to reach an agreement, leaving major matters concerning the regulations of funding and parties unresolved spending expenditures.

One of the reasons political parties are supposed to be funded is that they form a vital part of governance landscape. Political parties recruit future leaders and representatives, develop policies and brace them for government affirms Dalton et al. (2011). These activities cannot be attained without the involvement of political parties and lack of funding of such entities would jeopardize these efforts in meeting democratic governance. Therefore, state funding of political parties is a substantial effort in political parties that would focus on grooming future leaders and representatives that would otherwise spend lot of time and resources to seek alternative sources of income to facilitate political parties’ functions.

The dependence of individual contributions and donations from interested institutions and well-wishers could not sustain political parties long term planning. According to researches by Fisher (2011), in other countries surrounding Britain have developed funding systems around their own culture, political and values frameworks, including state funds in various methods. The Swedish political parties back in 1970s for example, they embarked on a voluntary concurrence to stop from agreeing to private donations. As a result, public financial backing was brought in to facilitate parties to focus on long term planning without the reliance on unreliable donations. The same agreement was met in Canada where it introduced a federal party financial backing to be capable of banning of donations from companies. A certain number of votes had to struggle to achieve a sit in parliament to represent its voters, irrespective of them acquiring donations amounting to 1.9 million US dollars.

Through government funding of political parties, Molomo and Sebudubudu (2005) argues that they subscribe to earn value by engaging with citizens that pay their taxes. In Germany for example, it was determined that parties are supposed to receive more from the state rather than other sources of funding as a form of seeking subscription to seek value from the citizens. In Australia, any form of funding of political parties it is meant to cover election costs. In the state of Dutch political parties funding was only meant to facilitate research institute but with time it was expanded to cover all other party expenses. It is a strong depiction that funding of political parties would prove to the public that they are not fraudulent but rather seek support to facilitate democratic functions of a state.

On the other hand, public funding of political parties has broadened the distance between the political elites, that is the party leaders and candidates with the ordinary citizens, these are, the voters, supporters and party members according to reports fetched by Klašnja (2015). When political parties as well as its candidates fail to depend on their members or supporters for financial support or membership donations nor for voluntary labor, then they are likely to not be involved in the decisions regarding the party, or their opinions would not matter on policy matters.

Through public funding of political parties, it conserves a status quo that maintains the entrenched parties and their candidates in power. In most cases, Mietzner (2013) argues that public funding are appropriated among political parties and candidates that are already in the legislature. It makes the matter more complex for contemporary political parties to acquire representation within the same legislature. The legal systems can therefore restrict these adverse monopolies by offering distinctive affluence for upcoming political candidates and parties.

Through public funding contributed by citizens in form of taxes are forced to advocate beliefs and views of political parties and candidates they do not share. According to researches by Polk et al. (2017), it is a belief among so many individuals that taxpayers are not supposed to be forced via public coffers to sponsor candidates or political parties they would otherwise not vote for. Alternatively, they would rather have the chance to decide if and when they would want to donate money to a candidate or political party.

Finally, according to Morgan (2011), when public funds are offered to political parties, they are siphoned from hospitals and schools. Note that public funds in most cases they are scarce and are required for most of the essential services. To several numbers of people, offering public funds to political parties would be to paralyze these services to citizens for political conquests.

Bibliography

Bakker, R., De Vries, C., Edwards, E., Hooghe, L., Jolly, S., Marks, G., Polk, J., Rovny, J., Steenbergen, M. and Vachudova, M.A., 2015. Measuring party positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999–2010. Party Politics, 21(1), pp.143-152.

Bittner, A., 2011. Platform or personality?: the role of party leaders in elections. OUP Oxford.

Bos, L., Van der Brug, W. and De Vreese, C., 2011. How the media shape perceptions of right-wing populist leaders. Political Communication, 28(2), pp.182-206.

Colomer, J. ed., 2016. The handbook of electoral system choice. Springer.

Cross, W.P. and Katz, R.S. eds., 2013. The challenges of intra-party democracy. OUP Oxford.

Dalton, R.J., Farrell, D.M. and McAllister, I., 2011. Political parties and democratic linkage: How parties organize democracy. Oxford University Press.

Eggers, A.C. and Spirling, A., 2016. Party cohesion in Westminster systems: inducements, replacement and discipline in the house of commons, 1836–1910. British Journal of Political Science, 46(3), pp.567-589.

Fisher, J., 2011. State funding of political parties: Truths, myths, and legends. Money, Politics, and Democracy, pp.19-36.

Hanretty, C., Lauderdale, B.E. and Vivyan, N., 2017. Dyadic representation in a Westminster system. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 42(2), pp.235-267.

Hix, S. and Noury, A., 2016. Government-opposition or left-right? The institutional determinants of voting in legislatures. Political Science Research and Methods, 4(2), pp.249-273.

Klašnja, M., 2015. Corruption and the incumbency disadvantage: Theory and evidence. The Journal of Politics, 77(4), pp.928-942.

Mietzner, M., 2013. Money, power, and ideology: Political parties in post-authoritarian Indonesia. NUS press.

Molomo, M. and Sebudubudu, D., 2005. Funding of political parties: Levelling the political playing field. 40 Years, 147.

Morgan, J., 2011. Bankrupt representation and party system collapse. Penn State Press.

Pilet, J.B. and Cross, W. eds., 2014. The selection of political party leaders in contemporary parliamentary democracies: a comparative study. Routledge.

Polk, J., Rovny, J., Bakker, R., Edwards, E., Hooghe, L., Jolly, S., Koedam, J., Kostelka, F., Marks, G., Schumacher, G. and Steenbergen, M., 2017. Explaining the salience of anti-elitism and reducing political corruption for political parties in Europe with the 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey data. Research & Politics, 4(1), p.2053168016686915.

Rohrschneider, R. and Whitefield, S., 2012. The strain of representation: How parties represent diverse voters in Western and Eastern Europe. Oxford University Press.

Threlfall, M., 2010. The purpose of electoral reform for Westminster. The Political Quarterly, 81(4), pp.522-536.