Advantages of a FPTP system.

Authors Avatar

Asses the advantages and disadvantages of the “first past the post” system of voting.

“First past the post” also known as FPTP is the main system of voting in the United Kingdom, used in both general elections and local elections. It works on the basic principle of “plurality”, in essence, whoever has the most votes wins, meaning no clear majority is needed. The electorate vote for their choice on MP in their constituency, and after the votes have been counted, a single elected MP will emerge the winner and represent that whole constituency in the House of Commons. However, as with most political systems and theories, it has its clear advantages and disadvantages, as will be explored in this answer.

        Perhaps its most distinct advantage is its unambiguous simplicity. It is easy to understand and operate. The ballot paper is simple, the people voting only vote once for a single candidate, and thus party, and the subsequent counting of votes is relatively straightforward compared to other alternatives. It also leads to a fairly clear outcome of the election, as the candidate with the most votes secures their particular constituency, and thus the party with the most seats the majority in parliament, and so form the government. It also avoids the possibility of the forming of coalition governments due to a clear winning party. This leads to a strong government with much representation within commons, and so the power and will to pass laws which suit that certain party elected to power. A key factor of why FPTP creates a strong government is the so called “winning bonus”, which is effectively as it sounds, a bonus for the winning party. This is the exaggeration of the lead of the most popular party, practically guaranteeing the solid position of the winning party. Even if they achieve a small lead over their opposition, it may lead to a significant gain of seats. For example at the 1992 general election the conservatives took 41.8% of the vote, yet that transpired into over 50% of the actual seats, allowing them to form a strong efficient government. A coalition government could lead to bitter rows within government and a political stalemate, which obviously would not be the best use of parliaments time and resources.  The single member constituencies used in UK general elections improve the effective representation of the electorate. One member of parliament is responsible for representing the interests of a single constituency area and all the people within its boundaries. This can lead to a strong bond between MP’s and their constituents, which perhaps would not be the case with other multimember seats. It creates a clear single “leader” of that constituency, and whom the constituents know to go to. If there were multiple representatives within a single constituency, the public may not know who to go to in what circumstances, and the roles of the individual representatives becomes blurred. This also encourages MP’s to act on behalf of all their constituents rather than on a narrow party line.

Join now!

        However, it can easily be argued that the first past the post system of voting is seriously flawed, as following. The principle argument against this style of voting, is perhaps the simplest, it’s unfair. The number of seats a party wins is not representatives of the number of votes it receives. This can lead to a number of situations including; a party winning more votes than its nearest rival but fewer seats (twice since WW2 have a party won a general election with only the second highest percentage of votes); a bais towards the two main political parties; and a ...

This is a preview of the whole essay