Furthermore, FPTP aids democracy because it clarifies the choices available to voters and can be used by anyone; all you have to do is cross through one box. It offers voters a clear and simple choice between potential parties of government, each committed to a different policy or ideological agenda and this subsequently makes elections and politics more meaningful to ordinary citizens. FPTP also produces a strong majority government and no weak coalitions (For example the thatcher years. In 1979 Thatcher won with 43.9% of votes, in 1983 42.4% of votes, and in 1987 42.2% of votes. But the 2010 election is a rare example of FPTP producing a hung parliament, Cameron only won by 36.1% of votes). This is why the electoral system should be reformed.
On the other hand, the electoral system should be reformed due to disproportionality. FPTP is disproportional because it is ‘seats not votes’ that count, it fails to establish a reliable link between the proportion of votes won by parties and the proportion of seats they gain. This happens because the system is primarily concerned with the election of individual members, not with the representation of political parties. An example of this is that it is possible with FPTP for the ‘wrong’ party to win an election. This happened in 1951 when the Tories formed a majority government but won fewer seats than Labour. In February 1974 the tables turned, with Labour forming a minority government but with fewer votes than the Conservatives.
Another reason for why the electoral system should be reformed is because of systematic bias. The disproportionality isn’t random; certain parties do well in the elections while others suffer. One of the examples of bias is the size of the party, large parties benefit at the expense of small parties and this happens because the ‘winner takes all’. This means that 100% of representation gained in each constituency is done by a single candidate, and therefore by a single party. Plus, the winning candidates tend to come from large parties, as these are parties whose candidates are most likely to be ‘first past the post’ in the sense of plurality support. But for candidates from smaller parties than come for instance, fourth in the election, win nothing and gain no representation for their party. And voters are discouraged from supporting smaller parties because they know that they are unlikely to win any seats (The Greens, UKIP, BNP for example) which then results in a low turnout and the votes are wasted. The electorates voices are then becoming disenfranchised because their views are not being heard, which is why the electoral system should be reformed.
Additionally, parties whose support is geographically concentrated do better than those with evenly distributed support. This occurs because geographical concentration makes a party’s support more ‘effective’, in the way that it is more likely to gain plurality votes and therefore win seats. Similarly, such parties also have the advantage that where they aren’t in fact winning seats, they are ‘wasting’ fewer votes. The danger for parties with geographically evenly distributed support is that they come second or third in elections almost everywhere, picking up very few or perhaps no seats. This is why the electoral system should be reformed.
The electoral system should also be reformed because of electoral fairness. Fairness dictates that a party’s strength in government should reflect its level of support in the country. Proportionality underpins the basic democratic principle of political equality. In PR, all people’s votes have the same value, regardless of the party they support. Every single vote counts so that none or few votes are ‘wasted’ in the sense that they are cast for candidates or parties who lose the election, or are surplus to the needs of winning candidates or parties. This should strengthen electoral turnout and promote civil engagement.
Governments elected under proportional representation will enjoy the support of at least 50 percent of those who vote. Proportional representation has implications for the relationship between the executive and parliament. Proportional representation systems distribute power more widely as more parties are involved. Decision-making becomes quicker and easier and also more effective.
It can be argued that, yes, the system should be reformed for a number of reasons as follows; It penalises the 'third' or smaller parties. It is a disproportion system because it is 'seats not votes' that count. It can help foster a two party system, which means that those parties are over represented and leads to a less democratic political system. It can lead to adversarial politics or the domination of one party. It creates a large number of safe seats, which means that many votes are wasted. There is a limited voter choice and voters cannot choose between candidates of the same party. Votes in Constituency's are not of equal value because it depends on whether it is a safe or marginal seat. Representation is disproportionate because some constituencies are larger than others.
There are also reasons against electoral reform such as clear electoral choice. First past the post aids democracy because it clarifies the choices available to votes. It offers voters a clear and simple choice between potential parties of government, each committed to a different policy. First past the post also established a strong and reliable link between a representative and his or her constituency. In first past the post voters get what they vote for and winning parties have the ability to carry out their manifesto promises. First past the post also ensures that governments can govern. Coalition governments are wear and fairly ineffective because they have to seek legislative support by two or more parties. Single party governments are stable and cohesive and so are generally more able to survive for a full term in office. This is because the government is united by ideological loyalties whilst coalition governments are often wek and unstable.
by
shaun_shah (student)
