Using a more proportional system in UK would mean more political equality and electoral fairness. People’s votes would have the same value, even if someone supports a minor party, they would know that their votes will count, as the percentage of votes equals the number of seats the party wins. Furthermore this would mean that the strength of the major party in parliament is legitimate because it should reflect the level of public support. For example in the 2005 elections Labour Party won with just 35% of votes, which is 3% fewer than the Conservatives, but got 188 seats more than them. Some voting systems make it very difficult for racial and ethnic minorities to win their fair share of seats, while others (PR systems) are explicitly designed to ensure fair representation for these groups. For example in Greater London Assembly, where the Additional member system is used, supporters of the BNP which are thought to be a racial party, are represented and won actually about six seats. Even though the AMS system is hybrid, a mixture of winner-takes-all and PR system, it gives greater chance smaller parties to win seats and more people to be represented. This shows that the use of more proportional system could change the political process and lead to greater equality and representation as minorities would have voice.
However, more political equality and representation of the minorities might not be that great. If it is thought carefully, political equality would mean that coalition government needs to be formed and parties should work in consensus because separately they cannot achieve much, as the opposition would be too strong. Like in Scotland where there is a coalition government, the Labour Party has the majority seats but they cannot put through a bill without the support of SNP or Liberal Democrats. This has some weaknesses. For example the party with the majority of votes cannot put through its manifesto, as the opposition is too strong. This means that the ideas which most people voted for would not be put into action. So although the PR system would be more democratic, it might not be that fair. The fact that minorities would have seats is also worrying, because it is possible these to be some extremist groups with radical thinking that may lead to many quarrels in Parliament. The political process then would be changed but probably in a negative way.
A more Proportional system would also mean that all votes counts and that there will not be so many wasted ones. Now using FPTP system for the General elections the two major parties, Labour and Conservatives and apparently the third party Liberal Democrats, are those who people should vote for, otherwise the vote would not matter. This is because with FPTP system, approximately two-thirds of the seats are 'safe' because one party has a huge majority and always wins, so the vote is unlikely to make a real difference if it is for smaller party. This leaves many areas of the country unrepresented because a party has no hope of winning a seat despite having lots of supporters. In that sense using proportional system in UK would change the political process because it would strengthen the electoral turnout and many more people will be engaged with the political process.
However would that be such a good idea? In 2005 was the lowest turnout since 1918 but this also mean that the voters are more likely to be people with political knowledge, interested in politics and reading lots of information about the candidates. In a way this could mean that the elected representatives would be the best possible choice.
In PR electoral systems, instead of one member of the legislature being elected in a small region, it uses much larger regions where five, ten, or more members are elected. So instead of only one winner, there are multiple winners. And off course this means that they are supposed to work in consensus. Every decision, every bill to be put through will need to be debated on and discussed in details until the majority agrees or disagrees with it. As a result each new low or important decision would be carefully taken and it is supposed to be the best for the country and the people. If UK had more proportional system may be the country would not have gone to the war with Iraq. There were many people against it but the Prime Minister is too powerful and can decide on his will whether or not to take part in a war.
However when there are so many people it is hard to come to consensus, the government is weak and unstable. In that sense a majoritarian system is better because it creates strong, single-party government and it is more likely to govern well over its full term in office. With this system the government is united by common ideology and the fact that they should show a manifesto means that the electorate knows what they are voting for.
The first past the post system is not the most democratic one but so far it managed to create strong and stable government. Furthermore it is easy to understand and calculate, you vote once and the candidate with most votes wins it all. People got used to it and may be they accepted the inequality it creates. This is why it might be very difficult to change. The voters would have to be educated on the new system to understand it. However changing the system to a more proportional one will create a fairer system. This may decrease voting apathy as voters know their vote is not wasted. But it can only be guessed how this change would affect the political process because the proportional systems have not been tested on the GE and no one know what the turn out will be or how stable government it will create. It might be a decision that had to be made long time ago or it might turn out to be a mistake. How we can judge the final result without trying it?
