The Additional Member System
ADVANTAGE
DISADVANTAGE
PROPORTIONAL RESULT
Leads to an electoral result which is
more proportional – percentage of
votes for party roughly equal to
percentage of seats gained
LESS VOTER CHOICE
Less choice of candidates – in Scottish
elections, the second vote is for a
party rather than a candidate so the
eventual MSPs are chosen by the
parties – not by the voter.
For example in the 2011 SP election
which used the AMS, the SNP got
45% of the vote and gained 53% of
the seats which is quite proportional.
In contrast, in the 2010 Westminster
election, which uses FPTP, there was
less proportionality with the
Conservatives polling 36% of the vote
but gained 47% of the seats. Also in
the same election Labour polled 29%
of the vote and gained 39% of the
seats.
CREATES COALITIONS WHICH IS
GOOD
Coalition Governments are more likely
under the AMS. This is arguably
better since parties have to
cooperate and compromise and so
decisions reflect a wider range of
views.
This allows parties to punish their own
potential candidates if they step out of
line with the Party which is arguably
unfair. For example Margo MacDonald
was an SNP MSP but after falling out
with the party, she was placed sixth on
the SNP list for the Lothian region
meaning that she had very little chance
of becoming an MSP for the SNP again.
During these times parties had to
work together to make laws for the
country…e.g. the Labour/Lib Dem
coalition of 1999-2003 ensured that
Scottish students do not have to pay
to go to university or college.
CREATES COALITIONS OR
MINORITY GOVERNMENTS WHICH
IS BAD
Coalition or minority governments are
more likely which is arguably a negative.
This is because there can be too much
time wasted on discussing and
compromise instead of getting the job
done quickly – as in a majority
government.
The minority SNP government of 200711 had difficulty passing laws
This was because they did not have a
majority of seats in the SP and so had
to rely on the support of MSPs from
other parties to win votes in
Parliament. They failed for example to
pass a law on Alcohol Minimum Pricing in
2010 because opposition MSPs (mostly
Labour) voted against it.
The Additional Member System
MORE REPRESENTATIVES
AMS is a proportional system which
maintains the link constituents have
with a constituency MSP whilst also
providing constituents with 7 other
regional MSPs. More choice for
constituents about who to approach
with issues.
For example, someone living in
Carntyne might approach the
constituency MSP for Glasgow Provan
– Labour MSP Paul Martin – or they
might rather speak to one of the 7
regional MSPs for Glasgow, such as
Patrick Harvie MSP of the Green
Party or Ruth Davidson MSP of the
Conservative party.
LESS WASTED VOTES
Under the AMS, less votes will be
“wasted”. This is because seats are
awarded proportionally rather than a
“winner takes all” scenario as is the
case with FPTP.
For example, in the Glasgow region in
2011, 3 Labour, 2 SNP, 1 Conservative
and 1 Green MSP were elected.
Under FPTP, only Labour and maybe
the SNP would have gained
representation in Glasgow and
thousands of votes cast for other
parties like the Greens would have
counted for nothing.
CONFLICT BETWEEN TYPES OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Because the AMS system in Scotland
leads to constituency MSPs and
regional MSPs this can create conflict
over who is the most important.
In August 2003, the then Labour MP
Brian Wilson described list MSPs as “a
waste of space”. There is an element
of rivalry between constituency and
List MSPs. Constituency MSPs tend to
see themselves as the "real" MSP for
the constituency.
CONFUSING
A major criticism of the AMS is that it
is difficult to understand. A complex
formula is used to allocate seats and
each person has 8 MSPs, unlike with
FPTP which is a very straightforward
system where constituents have 1
representative.
Because there are 8 MSPs that citizens
can potentially approach this might lead
to confusion as to who to approach.
Also, having to vote twice in an election
causes confusion and in previous
elections in 1999 and 2003, thousands
of ballot paper were incorrectly filled
in meaning that votes were not counted.
100,000 ballot papers were wasted in
2007 – perhaps partly down to the
confusing nature of the AMS.
The Additional Member System
SMALL PARTIES REPRESENTED
Under the AMS, smaller parties have
a greater chance of gaining seats in
Parliament, therefore more voices are
heard representing more views.
EXTREMIST PARTIES
A major criticism of AMS is that it
heightens the chances of extremist
parties such as the BNP gaining
representation in Parliament.
In 2011, 15 Conservative MSPs and 2
Green MSPs were elected into the
Scottish Parliament and in the past
Scottish Socialist MSPs have gained
representation. Under FPTP these
parties would have much less chance
of being heard in Scotland.
The BNP have put forward regional
candidates for the most recent
Scottish elections. In 2011, the BNP
gained 2,500 votes in the Glasgow
region. Although this was not enough to
gain an MSP they have a much better
chance of gaining an MSP this way than
under a FPTP system where only one
party can win the seat for a
constituency.