In the FPTP system, because one particular party can be virtually certain to win regardless of the candidate in many constituencies, and it forms “safe seats” in the House of Commons, which leads to low turnout in a general election, and a lot of votes are wasted because the winning party just needs one more vote than any other party. Under a PR system, especially the Single Transferable vote form, all the surplus votes are shared to other candidates in proportion, and this process will be continued until all the seats are filled. Thus when voters feel their votes will not be wasted, the turnouts will be automatically higher, meanwhile more people’s wishes are represented.
The FPTP system is unfair for small parties. For example, in the 1980s, the Liberal Democratic party got about 25 per cent of the votes but only gained about 3 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. Thus the Liberal Democratics are the main advocates of a PR system, because under PR, they can gain far more seats, and be in a better position to bargain with the main parties. If many small parties can gain seats in proportional to their votes, it is more likely to create a hung Parliament in which no party has a majority of seats. From the Liberal Democratics’ view, this can be seen as a good thing, for it may curb “elective dictatorship” (to use Lord Hailsham’s phrase), and because of the competition among parties, MPs may work harder with high attendance in the House of Commons.
In October 1997, Lord Jenkins in his report (an Independent Commission on the Voting System) advocated a system of AVPLUS. (Moyra Grant 1999, P.46) Under this system, 80-85 per cent of MPs are elected in single-member constituencies, and a top up of 15-20 per cent members are chosen from parties by a regional list system, to achieve a more proportional outcome. If this system had been used in 1997, Labour would have had fewer seats, but they would still have won the election with a clear majority. Furthermore, opinion polls suggest that about 60 per cent voters would now welcome a PR electoral system. (Moyra Grant 1999, P.39)
The main advantage of the FPTP system is its simplicity, one person has only one vote to support one candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins the constituency, though usually without an absolute majority of votes cast. However, PR systems are more complex for voters and there may be no clear winning result for days after an election.
Because the seats are proportionally distributed by the percentage of votes, and no party since 1935 has gained an absolute majority of votes cast, so a change in voting system may produce a hung Parliament and coalition government, as it has in the Scottish Parliament. Thus, there may be more conflict, more bargaining between parties, because different parties may not always have mandates for compromise. Meanwhile, small parties may gain disproportionate power in a coalition government, for example in Germany, the Free Democrats who have usually been supported by less than 18 per cent of the votes cast have often been in government. In addition, if the coalition is formed under the system of the single transferable vote (STV), the one-to-one relationship between MP and voter may be lost, because of multi-member constituencies, in this case, MPs may be less hard working and less directly accountable to their constituencies.
The FPTP system tends to produce a clear winner, strong government and a Prime Minister who has a mandate from the people. By contrast, a PR system can might produce a weak government, not only due to coalitions, but because of the lack of an effective choice at elections, means that the same parties and personalities are usually always in government, which may lead to corruption, lack of responsibility and less hard working of MPs. For instance in Italy, the PR electoral system is regarded as a major cause of weak coalition government. So in a referendum in 1993, a majority of Italians voted to abandon PR and adopt the FPTP system. (Bill Jones, Dennis Kavanagh, Michael Moran, Philip Norton 2001, P.149)
Every coin has two sizes, PR electoral systems also have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the view from different angles. Because of the success of PR electoral systems used in other parts of Britain and the Western European countries’ elections, the shortcomings of the FPTP system, Lord Jenkins’ report, and mainly because the Blair government has considered the possibility of a future referendum on changing the electoral system, the prospects for a PR system have certainly taken a large step forward. (Bill Jones, Dennis Kavanagh, Michael Moran, Philip Norton 2001, P.153) However, each type of PR systems has disadvantage, and mainly because the two dominant parties, Labour and Conservative may not favour PR for they will both lose seats. Thus for Westminster election the prospect of a PR system is still in uncertainty.
Bibliography
*Moyra Grant Understanding Politics SECOND ENDITION Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd. 1999.
* Bill Jones, Dennis Kavanagh, Michael Moran, Philip Norton Politics UK Longman, 2001.
