In addition, it can be argued that in the 2010 election a success that was shown by the FPTP system was its general way of being very simple, convenient and easy to understand. Generally the results of elections using FPTP can be calculated quickly. When necessary, this makes the transfer of power from one party to another much easier. Also, a valid vote requires only one mark beside the name or symbol of one candidate. Even if the number of candidates on the ballot paper is large, overall the count is easy for electoral officials to conduct. The referendum that was proposed by the coalition government in relation to changing the voting system was rejected by the electorate suggesting that they were happy with the FPTP system as perhaps they believed it was considerably simpler in comparison to the alternative voting system.
Another advantage of FPTP that the 2010 election illustrated was the way in which it provides a clear-cut choice between the two main parties. The inbuilt disadvantages faced by third and fragmented minority parties under FPTP in many cases cause the party system to gravitate towards a party of the ‘left’ and a party of the ‘right’, alternating in power. Third parties often wither away and almost never reach a level of popular support. This has been evident in the last three decades as the Labour party, traditionally of the 'left' and the Conservative party, traditionally of the 'right.' have entirely dominated the elections. It is generally agreed that the FPTP system helps contribute occasionally to close and exciting elections between the two main parties and in turn this could potentially lead to higher turnouts in some constituencies where the contest is obviously close and could swing either way.
On the other hand, the 2010 election also has shown the negative side of the FPTP system. This disadvantage has also been publicised in other general elections as well across the world. It relates to the number of votes cast for a party and how they are not accurately reflected in the number of seats won. Essentially, it excludes smaller parties from gaining 'fair' representation. For example, in the 2010 election the Liberal Democrats attained a figure of 23% of the total votes cast in the country. However, they only won 8.8% of the seats available. The FPTP system therefore may produce a bizarre situation where a party has gained more votes than their main rival but have actually won less seats.
Another disadvantage of our current FPTP system is that it makes votes not, in effect, of equal value. Votes are more valuable in 'marginal' constituencies where the result is in doubt. Votes for the second and third parties are of less value than votes for the winning party. This reasoning is applicable to the 2010 general election where the Labour and Conservative parties had approximately 34,000 votes per seat won whereas in contrast the Liberal Democrat party had approximately 120,000 votes per seat won. This means that a vote for Labour or the Conservatives in 2010 was worth more than three times as much as a vote for the Liberal Democrats. Thus, it could be argued that votes in UK general elections using the FPTP system are not always of equal value.
The usage of the FPTP system in this country can often encourage votes to be 'wasted.' Votes for very small parties that have no hope of winning any constituencies are virtually completely wasted. Voters who are considering voting for a losing party increasingly tend to vote for their second choice and one that is more likely to win constituencies. This is known as tactical voting. An example of this would be when a Labour supporter in a marginal Liberal/Conservative constituency votes Liberal Democrat in order to keep the Conservatives from winning. This can be described as opposing the conservatives more than actually supporting their party as the voter knows that their vote would just be wasted when voting for the Liberal Democrats. This was seen to a certain extent in the 2010 election. Some leading Liberals urged Liberal Democrat supporters to turn to Labour in constituencies where their own party is unlikely to win. This may be due to Labour and the Lib Dems having more in common than the Lib Dems and the Conservatives.
In conclusion, the 2010 election was a very unique and strange event as it displayed different advantages and disadvantages of the FPTP. It resulted in an anomaly in the form of a coalition meaning that it failed to give one party an overall majority in the House of Commons. This in turn has led to the government lacking in decisiveness because of the many diverse opinions held by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The FPTP system also excludes smaller parties so they can never win any constituencies meaning that the people they represent in society are under-represented. However this can sometimes be a positive concept of this system as extremist parties like the BNP who are known to be racist in the media are very unlikely to win any constituencies. The FPTP is also very practical, easy to use and understand. Overall the FPTP system has many benefits but it also has quite a few disadvantages. It is arguably the best possible political voting system we have at our disposal.
by
mrmanulover777 (student)
