Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

How proportional are the ‘British AMS’ systems?

By Patrick Dunleavy and Helen Margetts


The battle to introduce proportional representation into the UK has reached an uneasy draw, with PR systems apparently well-established in the two devolved nations, Scotland and Wales, as well as in the Greater London Assembly (GLA). These three systems are the most important mainland ones and share some common institutional features. In addition Northern Ireland has a well-established tradition of using the Single Transferable Vote (STV) for its distinctive party system. New institutional forms also remain possible locales for an extension of PR systems. The GLA pattern will be replicated in any English regional assemblies established in the next two years. Scottish local government may shift over to STV elections. And if direct elections for the House of Lords are ever brought in, some form of PR seems inevitable (see Dunleavy and Margetts, 1999b). So the UK has decisively entered on a possibly protracted phase of co-existence between PR and plurality rule elections, of which the core are the three British AMS systems. Here we examine how they have fared in terms of delivering proportional results, representing the votes cast by electors without artificial distortion, and reflecting or distorting the pattern of alignments. We sketch the devolved systems key features and examine how deviations from proportionality might be applied to them. The experience of British AMS systems so far has some key implications for the future reform of Westminster voting system

Topics: JA Political science (General)
Publisher: Taylor & Francis on behalf of The McDougall Trust
Year: 2004
OAI identifier:
Provided by: LSE Research Online
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • (external link)
  • (external link)
  • (external link)
  • Suggested articles


    1. (1997). Devolution Votes: PR Elections in Scotland and Wales.
    2. (1999). Electi n g m e mber s of the Lords (or Senate)’
    3. (1999). Electing members of the Lords (or Senate)’, included on the CD rom
    4. (1994). Electoral Systems and Party Systems. doi
    5. (1994). Electoral Systems and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford Universi t y
    6. (1997). Indices of Power Programme IOP 1.0. Mannheim : Centre for E u ropea n Social Researc h , Universi t y of Mannheim ,
    7. (1997). Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems Cambridge: doi
    8. (1996). Mix ed elector a l system s : An overvie w ’
    9. (1999). Mixed electoral system s in Britain and the Jenkins Comm iss i o n on Elector a l Reform ’ , doi
    10. (1999). Mixed electoral systems in Britain and the Jenkins Commission on Electoral Reform’, doi
    11. (1996). Mixed electoral systems: doi
    12. (1999). Proportional Representation for Local Government: An Analysis. doi
    13. (1998). Report to the Government Office for London: Electing the London Mayor and Assembly.
    14. (1989). Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems New Haven: doi
    15. (1998). The Performance of the Commission’s Schemes for a New Electoral System: Report to the Independent Commission on the Voting System. LSE Public Policy Group and Birk beck Public P o licy Centre.
    16. (1998). The Performance of the Commission’s Schemes for a New Electoral System: Report to the Independent Commission on the Voting System. LSE Public Policy Group and Birkbeck Public Policy Centre.
    17. (1998). The Politico’s Guide to Electoral Reform in Britain.

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.