Can the use of the First Past the Post electoral system be justified in a modern democracy?

Can the use of the First Past the Post electoral system be justified in a modern democracy? [50]

The ‘first past the post’ electoral system is a simple majority system whereby the country is divided into single member constituencies and voters select a single candidate who only requires a simple plurality of votes to win the election. It is extremely difficult to define a modern democracy, but the core ideas would be that it allows the people to govern (in most cases through elected officials) and fair and equal representation for all. Thus, for the FPTP system to be justified it must meet this criteria, and whilst it does usually fulfil it’s role of creating strong, single party government it unquestionably fails in encouraging participation and providing equal representation and therefore it is hard to justify.

One of the main reasons why it can be seen as justified is the fact that it provides strong and single party government. The United Kingdom has always employed a first past the post system and for this reason there has only been six coalition governments in its history and only two since 1940. These consistently single party governments for many have been vital in allowing laws to be passed and that with a coalition government, very little would be able to passed. The theoretical argument is that single party government leads to strong government and this is what First Past the Post creates. Furthermore, in creating single party governments, it minimalises the influence of third parties in the sense that they struggle to gain representation. Many tend to see it as an advantage as it keeps the extremes out, such as in Britain where although the BNP gained 2% of the vote, they didn’t come close to gaining a seat. However, it could also be considered a disadvantage as genuine candidates struggle to gain representation; in the Indian general election of 2009, Lal Krishna Advani who came second got 24% of the public vote and 33.3% of the seats whilst Prakash Karat who came third got 21% of the public vote yet only 7.7% of the seats.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The failures of the alternative systems are also important as to why FPTP is justified. There are unquestionable issues with any kind of proportional system and these mainly link to the viewed failures of coalition government. A proportional system such as that used in Germany, whilst providing greater representation to parties than in the UK, creates an issue regarding the establishment of the coalition government. For example, third parties are given a disproportionate, as seen in Germany where Guido Westewelle, who as leader of the Free Democratic Party had the ability to effectively demand the position of Foreign Secretary in return for the promise to build a coalition. Further, as seen in the UK in 2010, the Liberal Democrats, whilst only gaining 23% compared to Labour’s 29% and the Conservatives 36%, had huge power – it was essentially them who decided the government as whoever they decided to join with would hold office. This raises another issue in the sense that with coalition governments, no one really gets what they want as coalition agreements are drawn up in boardrooms in the aftermath of an election. Another clear issue with coalitions is the idea of accountability, as having one party in control means they can easily be held accountable whilst with numerous parties it can be increasingly difficult; this has recently been experienced in the UK in regard to the increasing tuition fees which was a Conservative proposal but Cameron made Clegg announce it, thus shifting the blame. Whilst the FPTP system is not perfect, ultimately the alternatives are no better, as seen in America in 2000 where studies show that a proportional system would not have changed the result and instead would have increased it.

For many, one of the key factors for its justification comes from the fact that it allows a constituent / representative link that many fear would be lost in a different system. This is clearly a key feature in a Democracy as the only way for a representative to efficiently be able to represent is through frequent contact with the people they’re representing. For example, under the party list system as seen in many European countries such as Belgium and Luxembourg, the link is completely broken which has unquestionably democratic implications. However, under FPTP as seen with the nomination of Electoral College voters in the USA and the Canadian Federal elections, this link is strongly maintained.

However, there are clear issues with the first past the post arrangement that render it unjustifiable in a modern democracy; the main problem being the lack of representation it provides. For example, in the 2010 UK General Election, UKIP received 919,000 votes but gained no seats whilst the Alliance Party gained 42,000 votes yet got one seat. In a proportional system however, this would not be the case as the number of seats a party received would correspond much closer with the number of votes they receive; in Israel under the party list system in 2009, the Kadima party gained 22.4% of the vote and 28 seats and the Hadash party gained 3.32% of the vote and 4 seats which is far more proportional. Many see this as an advantage as the definition of a democracy is one where the will of the people governs, and the fairest way to do this is through proportional representation. Any majoritarian system gives power to the minority, which obviously has clear democratic implications.

Another issue that is linked with the lack of representation is the vast amount of wasted votes in a plurality system thus leaving it unjustifiable as the will of so many is ignored. In the United Kingdom, the fact that in each constituency only a simple majority is required to gain the seat, there is clearly going to be a mass of wasted votes. In the most extreme example from the most recent election in 2010, in Hampstead, Glenda Jackson got only 42 more votes that Chris Phillip yet won the seat – meaning only 17,000 out of 52,000 got the result they desired. In the 2005 election, 70% of votes were effectively wasted. Furthermore, in a directly elected Presidential system like Singapore there is a risk of this – as seen with the 2011 election where Tony Yam got only 0.4% more votes than the second place Tan Cheng Bock yet won – once again highlighting how in such a system, it is possible to become President with well under 50% of the vote (he only got 35%). The obvious issue with this is when directly electing for one position it is impossible to say half the Singaporean Presidency, however what would be more democratic is a system such as the Supplementary vote system or the second ballot system as seen in France which ensure the winner has a 50% majority. Further examples can be taken from America, where in the 2000 Presidential Election, people voting for the winner George Bush were in the minority. The reason for this is that with the Electoral College arrangement, all states (apart from Nebraska and Maine) award their EC votes by a plurality, FPTP system, meaning that only a simple majority is required. This causes scenarios such as in Florida, whereby George W. Bush gained only 537 more votes than Al Gore, yet got all 25 Electoral College votes, thus completely ignoring the views of around 3 million people. A system such as the Maine System would surely allow more proportionality and as each state is voting for a number of Electoral College voters there would be no problem sharing them out.

The fact that the First Past the Post system ultimately creates a two party system leaves it unjustifiable as a Democracy requires choice and the voters are simply not given that. This idea derives from Duverger’s law, and economist Jeffrey Sachs states that ‘the main reason for America’s majoritarian character is the electoral system for Congress’. This can also be clearly seen in the UK where 18 out of the 23 general elections since 1922 have produced a single party majority. Furthermore, the notion that coalition governments are always weak governments is not always the case, as Germany has always had coalition governments yet has managed to push forward social change as well as becoming a major force on the international scene.

It is therefore clear that whilst the First Past the Post system succeeds in creating single party governments, this is really the only benefit it has over the other systems, and in some cases as seen in Germany coalition governments can be fruitful. It fails enormously in it’s role of representation as smaller parties are clearly marginalized, and a vast proportion of the vote is wasted on these parties which due to the nature of the system are not going to gain any significant power. Therefore, the system is unjustifiable in a modern democracy and whilst the alternatives are not perfect, a number of them are more Democratic than First Past the Post.

Peer Reviews

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

ecaudate

31st of Jul 2012

Quality of writing

The candidate shows a mature style of writing which flows well, and uses appropriate and specific vocabulary ("majoritarian system", "Electoral College", for example). There are also no spelling or grammatical issues. The use of a clear structure which introduces the essay, focuses on the argument, then the counterargument before concluding is effective because of its clarity and simplicity. Some prefer to write an argument and then follow it with the counterargument, and both structures are good, but the one this candidate has used can be best under pressure, and is less complicated for the student writing the essay.

Level of analysis

The level of analysis in this essay is one of its strengths; the frequent use of and variation in examples from political history (the UK, India, Germany, the US, etc.) is impressive and demonstrates that the candidate has an excellent knowledge of politics. However, what makes this essay particularly good is the fact that examples are not simply tacked on to the end of an argument or point. Instead, the candidate makes reference to their example and then goes on to explain why it is relevant and the significance of it in their argument. This is the critical part that gains this candidate access to the top grades, as it shows the examiner that the candidate can adapt and apply their knowledge of politics under pressure. The inclusion of equally-weighted analysis on both the argument and counterargument in this essay allows the candidate to discuss both sides before coming to a conclusion, making for a balanced essay which comes across as well-written.

Response to question

In this question, candidates must use their knowledge of First-Past-the-Post and how it operates to both defend and criticise it, before making a judgement about the system, and answering the question of whether it can be justified in modern democracies. There is also the possibility, and this candidate demonstrates it, of bringing in other electoral systems in order to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of First-Past-the-Post by comparing it to the other systems. This candidate's response to the question is strong and well-developed, and shows other students of A Level Politics how an essay should be written.

Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn