Should the Westminster Electoral System be Reformed?

One argument for reform of the electoral system is that government claim a mandate or legitimacy despite the fact that they have just over a third of the popular vote, in 2005 Labour claimed a mandate or legitimacy to rule despite the fact that only 35.2% of the electorate vote for Labour, however the referendum about changing the electoral system was defeated by a large margin meaning that the majority of the UK is happy with our electoral system and no government will dare to overturn the decision by implementing a form of AV or another electoral system.  

The most important reason for reform is that there is a poor vote to seat ratio or proportionality that hits the Liberal Democrats more than any other party. For example in the 2010 general election got 21% of the vote but only 8.8% of the seats. This is because the Liberal Democrats cannot concentrate their voters in areas as the Conservatives and Labour can, in rural areas and urban areas respectively. However FPTP, does provide a strong constituency link with the constituents which is an important feature in representative democracy which may be diluted or lost in form of proportional representation but in response to this, many seats are safe seats where any swing in vote changes will not affect the result of the incumbent MP being elected meaning that the MP isn’t worried about representing their constituents effectively.

Safe seats in the UK mean that parties are not accountable in these seats meaning that MP’s and parties ignore them and concentrating on the 20% or so that decides the general election. Under, PR especially AV or the supplementary vote that require a candidate to gain 50% mean that the government is more accountable buy eliminating most safe seats. On the other hand general elections held under the FPTP system result in the election of single party majority governments which can be held responsible and accountable for their policies at subsequent general elections. But coalition governments which are usually elected by PR are less accountable because they claim the success for their parties and blame the failures on the coalition parties meaning that accountability is undermined.

Another disadvantage of FPTP is that it creates anomalies. For example in the 2010 general election Liberal Democrats it gained an extra 1% in votes but lost 5 seats. In 2005 Labour won 35.3% of the vote and had a majority of 65 seats and the Conservatives in 2010 gained 36.1% of the votes but were in a minority. However following general elections governments can be quickly formed responding to crises whereas PR means potentially weeks of negotiation meaning the country would be without a government.

Furthermore a argument against reform is that under FPTP it is relatively easy to vote out an unpopular MP. However some forms of AMS which is a hybrid system of FPTP and PR usually based on the party list system which means that an unpopular MP may be voted out of a constituency but nevertheless retains a seat because s/he is high up on the Party list.

Overall the electoral system shouldn’t be reformed because the PR has more weaknesses that would harm representative democracy than help it.