Scottish Parliament elections take place every 4 years, to elect members of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, they use the Additional Members’ System (AMS) to do this. This essay will argue that the Additional Members’ System is undemocratic. 

One advantage of AMS is the increased representation due to the better MSP and constituent links. For example, each constituency gets 8 representatives - 1 for the constituency and 7 for the individuals in the region. John Scott is the Conservative MSP for Ayr. This means that under this system each constituency gains 8 representatives. The First Past The Post section of this system ensures that there is one directly accountable MSP per constituency. This ensures accountability as well as proportionality. However, it becomes undemocratic due to MSP conflicts and the lack of accountability in the representatives. For example, there is a rivalry between the ‘classes’ of MSP’s as they are often from different parties but responsible for the same areas which usually leads to a ‘turf’ war. In 2011, the south of Scotland region had 4 SNP MSP’s, 2 Labour and 1 Liberal Democratic - while the Ayr constituency MSP in that region is a Conservative. This system creates 2 types of MSP’s; one with constituency duties and 7 regional ones without a ‘base’ as such. The regional MSP’s are more directly accountable to the voters, just to their party as they have no direct constituency. Therefore, it leaves a constituent in the dark without the knowledge of who to go to if they have an opinion about how to improve their areas. This proves that there is a lack of accountability with this system. But, this system also creates conflict with MSP’s as they themselves don't know who has to do what within that region. This proves that this system creates unnecessary conflict for MSP’s to deal with instead of doing their actual jobs. Therefore this shows that even though the Additional Members System has a link between MSP/constituent, it however gives way for a lack of accountability for MSP’s and creates conflict between both the constituency MSP and the regional MSPs, it means that this system is undemocratic and unrepresentative. 

Another advantage of AMS is that it increases party representation as smaller parties are allowed into the Scottish Parliament due to the 2 votes system. For example, in 2016 there were 6 Green MSPs and in 2011 there was 1 Independent MSP. This means that for these voters who don’t vote for the established parties; the regional list section allows many smaller parties to gain representation for their candidates. This could be seen as more democratic as the proportional section is fairer on these parties giving more chance to gain representation. However, it becomes undemocratic and unrepresentative due to unelected MSPs through the regional vote and the replacement of any MSPs if they resign or die. For example, there have been cases such as Andrew Arbuckle, who was chosen by the Liberal Democrats to be an MSP after regional Liberal Democrat MSP Keith Raffan resigned due to stress but there was no election to choose a suitable replacement for the job, although by-elections are possible in the constituency section, the list section of this system creates a problem with by-elections. If a regional MSP dies or resigns there is no mechanism for by-elections. The party to who the MSP belongs simply chooses a replacement and the public get no say in the choosing. Therefore, this makes the Additional Members’ System undemocratic. Even though it allows the representation of smaller parties that could never win by a majority it allows for changes that the parties control without public opinion having an impact, thus making the Additional Members’ System undemocratic and unrepresentative of what the public want. 

A final advantage of the Additional Members’ System is that it means that there are less wasted votes. For example, 73 MSPs are elected in the constituency section, 56 MSPs are additionally elected in the proportional list section. This means that each elector has at least one effective vote. Even if their candidate has no chance in the constituency vote, people can still have a limited way through the Additional Members’ System but it proves undemocratic because it takes away the public’s choice of who represents them and gives the choice to the winning parties. For example, in 2011 most Conservative MSP’s in Scotland are regional MSP but the 12 regional MSPs compared to only 2 constituency MSPs. This means that in the party-list system, parties have complete control over choosing their additional members. Some MSPs consider their place on the party list more important than connecting with voters. Therefore, this shows that even though fewer people's votes are wasted, the public gets no control over who is their representative of their region as the party decides who does what. Thus, making the Additional Members’ System very undemocratic and unrepresentative of the people. 

So in conclusion, the Additional Members’ System is not very democratic or representative of the Scottish people. AMS may develop a good MSP/constituent link, but it leads to a lack of accountability and conflict between the MSPs that were elected for a constituency. This leads to an undemocratic representation of the Scottish electorate as they leave them confused on who to go to when they want something changed/ improved. AMS may give those who support smaller parties more representation but takes away the choice from the public because the party chooses who the representative is when the former leaves their position but there is no public opinion or election on who the new candidate is. This is undemocratic as the whole purpose of the election is to give the Scottish people the opportunity to choose who they want to make decisions on their behalf, but they don’t get to choose who the representatives are. AMS may result in fewer wasted votes, but it also results in an unfair split of how many representatives get chosen by the public, because they are believed to want to do good and the number of party-chosen representatives who just want to sit in the Scottish Parliament. This is undemocratic as the public don't get more choice as the party chooses the representatives who might not do what is right for the constituency but what is right for the party. Therefore, this concludes that the Additional Members’ System is very undemocratic due to the unfair lack of choice and of accountability.