As stated in The Oxford Quick Reference Dictionary impartial is defined as ‘treating all alike; unprejudiced, fair.’ (The Oxford Quick Reference Dictionary, 1996: 440) Fair is defined as ‘1 just, equitable; in accordance with the rules.’ (The Oxford Quick Reference Dictionary, 1996: 310) Thus for electoral rules to be considered fair and impartial they must not prejudice any one party and be fair or just, in accordance with the rules. As Hague and Harrop state ‘Most controversy about electoral systems centres on the rules for converting votes into seats.’ (Hague and Harrop 2004: 146) Each of the voting systems have their own individual method of indicating who wins the seat(s) in each constituency which ultimately leads to the overall percentage of seats that each political party gets in accordance to the percentage of votes they received. If I were to generalise electoral systems as a whole to answer the title I would say that electoral systems are only fair and impartial to a limited degree. However, this is too generalised an answer and so I will break down the electoral rules into two parts- majoritarian systems and proportional representation systems so as to provide a deeper insight into the electoral world.
The degree of impartiality and fairness of majoritarian systems such as FPTP is difficult to assess as there are a lot of factors involved in the advantages and disadvantages of the systems which must be considered when assessing its impartiality and fairness. One of the main advantages of FPTP is that the government is to a large extent of the time elected with a majority in Parliament. This means that the government is free to act with the countries best interests at heart, in accordance with their manifesto, without having to fear short term unpopularity. For example, in 1997 and 1998 Blair was able to implement limited welfare reforms. The system also gives governments legitimate majorities and a mandate to put their programs into effect such as Labours ban on hunting. The governments created are usually a single party (fifteen out of sixteen British governments have had a majority since 1945) thus the winning political party does not have to negotiate with smaller parties who were not given the authority and legitimacy to rule the country or implement their own programs. The Political Party in power is then also accountable for its own actions and thus can be removed by the electorate at the next election if they so wish to do so. As was such the case in 1979 with Callaghan’s Labour Government and again in 1997 with Major’s Conservative Government.
Majoritarian systems also stop extremist parties such as the Rock and Roll Loony Party from being voted into Parliament, as they lack the concentrated support that is needed for a candidate to win in a constituency. The ministers themselves also are more independent from their party and therefore can act on their constituency’s behalf rather than the party’s behalf as unlike the Closed Party System the minister’s nomination into parliament is not determined by the party. This therefore leads to a stronger link between an MP and his constituency thus making the MP accountable to his constituency. For example, in 1997 Michael Portillo lost the Enfield South Gate seat. Another advantage, which can be seen as part of the desirability of using such systems, is that FPTP is a simple straightforward electoral system, which the majority of people can understand, especially as it has been in use for a number of years. The votes are easy to count and the results are accessible unlike systems such as STV, Jenkins and AMS.
There are however several disadvantages to majoritarian systems that undermines them leading to the view that it is an unfair and partial system. As said above, although the system stops extremists from gaining a place in Parliament it marginalises such parties as the Liberal Democrats as although they are popular across the country they too lack concentrated support, therefore given an unfair advantage to such parties as the Conservatives and the Labour Party. For example in the 1997 General Election although the Liberal Democrats received 18.3% of the national vote they only received 7.9% of the seats in Parliament (the highest amount ever) where as the Labour Party received 40.7% of the vote but received 62.5% of the seats. This is also due to how ministers only need more votes than their competitors to win a seat, rather than then needed a majority. Had AV been used in this General election instead the outcome would have been even less proportional than by using FPTP.
In total majoritarian systems are not to a large degree impartial as they favour parties with concentrated support and centralised views therefore the systems can be seen as prejudiced. Each candidate is treated to the same voting system however so in this way they can been seen to be to a limited degree impartial. The degree of fairness in majoritarian systems, however, is a little more difficult to examine. Although the systems work in accordance with the rules (for example for FPTP there is only vote done through a secret ballot and ministers are elected by having the most number of votes than any other candidate) it does not necessarily mean that the rules themselves are just. One such example is that not every person in Britain is entitled to a vote. Those under the age of 18 and others like asylum seekers and workers who are migrating to Britain from the ten new EU countries do not have the ability to vote, which some argue is to a very large degree unfair.
88888888888888888888888
The degree of impartiality and fairness of PR is a complicated matter due to the variables of each system. While there are arguments for PR, there are also arguments against which must be considered in context of the systems impartiality and fairness. Sartori states ‘The major factor in establishing the proportionality or disproportionality of PR is the size of the constituency- where ‘size’ is measured by the number of members that each district elects.’ (Sartori 2004: 8) This is one of the reasons why Lord Jenkins included a Top-up system in the new electoral system. While the AV voting system was used, which is considered even more unproportional than FPTP (had it been used in the 1997 and 2001 British General Elections the outcome would have been even less proportional) the top-up helps to balance out the ratios between % of seats to % of votes. For example in the Scottish Parliament elections of 1999 the Conservatives received 14% of the vote and 15.5 % of the votes under AMS. Had FPTP been used, however, the Conservatives would have failed to win any seats. The top-up MP’s also means that more views can be represented in parliament and fewer of the electorate’s votes are wasted. Another advantage of using PR systems is that, unlike with majoritarian systems, PR systems give representation to minor parties who do not have concentrated support. Fr example in the European Parliament election of 1999 the UK Independent party received two seats under the Closed Party List system where as in the previous election they had received none. Pluralism is thus, in this way, increased as more parties are represented giving a broader cross section of views. For example in the London Assembly elections of 2000 the Green Party received 12% of the seats. While it is possible under PR systems for one party to have a majority coalitions are usually generated and this can be considered a ‘good thing’. This is because they mean a range of views are represented in government, while at the same time it gives minor parties experience in government and as over 50% of the electorate have voted for those in government it gives the government greater legitimacy and authority to rule. In February of 2000 a coalition was created between Labour and the Liberal Democrats for the Welsh Assembly.
