Assess the strengths and weaknesses of proportional representation compared to First Past the Post.
Assess the strengths and weaknesses of proportional representation compared
to First Past the Post. (25 marks)
In general elections, the UK uses First Past The Post (FPTP), which is essentially when the country is split up into constituencies, and each constituency sends a representative to parliament. The representative is chosen by each elector choosing one person on the ballot paper, and the MP with the most votes (not necessarily the majority of votes) is sent to parliament. Although proponents of the status quo say FPTP is a simple, quick, and easy system to run; there are several weaknesses to this arguably “winner takes all” approach to general elections. One of the main criticisms is there is a definite two-party bias in the UK, and FPTP is essentially anti-third party. The Liberal Democrats, normally the third party, for years have been calling for a different electoral system which distributes the seats in parliament more fairy akin to the votes cast. Before the coalition agreement (and arguably after), their preferred voting system they wanted to see implemented in the UK was Proportional Representation (PR). This is an umbrella term, but we are generally talking about a party getting a number of seats in the House of Commons based on the proportion of votes they received. The 'Additional Member System' and the 'Single Transferable Vote' are both examples of a PR electoral system. Supporters of the system claim that that it more clearly represents the wishes of the voters' as expressed in the ballot box. One could concede this to be true, but not necessarily a good thing. If the government reflected the wishes of the voters in the UK in true PR terms, then government could prove a very difficult machine to run. With no party with a majority, and no one party with a true mandate, potentially every single decision to be made would have to be discussed and hammered out during lengthy parliament sessions similar to the debating that goes on in the House of Lords. Perhaps even with deliberate stalling by some parties. Either that or there could be coalition agreements made in smoke-filled rooms. Neither of these options are good for running the country or democracy as a whole, respectively. Although after the 2010 election, as if often cited by those in favour of sticking with FPTP; one can actually not say that coalitions would be more common exclusively under PR systems.