Also, FPTP, by supporting the main two parties of the UK and by giving the party that wins an election a “winner’s bonus” of additional seats can be said to provide and create strong governments. This in turn helps to make more effective policies and a government may gain a sustained decision on those policies. Supporters say that coalition governments formed of several parties are inherently unstable and often achieve undue influence from some of the smaller component parties. This means that FPTP is said to not only provide clear winners, but also strong single-party governments.
Finally, it can be said that FPTP is a good way of gaining effective representation in single member constituencies, and creates a closer bond between an MP and their constituency, as only one MP is responsible for reach geographical constituency. This avoids the blurring of responsibilities in multi-member councils and encourages MPs to work on behalf of their voters. This result sin the potentially significant “personal vote”.
However, it can be argued by opponents of FPTP that it as a system is unfair in the way in which it distributes seats, and is disproportionate as the percentage of seats does not accurately match the percentage of votes cast for each party. This means three things:
- A party can receive more votes than its closest rival yet win fewer seats.
- There is an unfair advantage to the two main parties, and a additional “winners bonus” is given to the election winner.
- Small parties with thinly-spread support are disadvantaged.
This means that a party who comes second in a popular vote can actually win an election on number of seats gained, and smaller parties with thinly spread nationwide support are disadvantaged.
There is also an electoral bias of FPTP towards the Labour Party. This resulted in enormous majorities sin 1997 and in 2001. Small nationwide parties fare badly because their support is thin, and therefore even if they were to get many vote overall it is likely that the number of seats will not be increased significantly.
Also, the idea that FPTP introduced the idea of winning by plurality and not by majority is deemed unfair. This means that a party can win by gaining one vote more than their closest rival, and this is said to be unfair; a system of winning my gaining a previously-set percentage of the vote and gaining a clear majority over rivals would be fairer. The plurality system also means that MPs can be elected even in areas of very low turnout, which is also considered unfair and a disadvantage of the FPTP system.
It is also argued that vote are of an unequal value, and that FPTP doesn’t conform the “one person, one vote, one value” idea. Differences in constituency size can under and overvalue individual votes. This means that a vote cast in a smaller constituency is more likely to affect the outcome than the same vote in a large constituency.
Also, votes that are cast for the losing party are considered “wasted” due to the plurality system, and do not help to elect a candidate. This definition also applies to votes cast to a winning party which turned out to be unneeded for that candidate to win.
There is also limited choice in the candidates voters may choose from on ballot papers, and are therefore deprived from an effective choice for representation. Also, FPTP is considered decisive and can encourage political conflict over cooperation, as parties battle to secure votes.
In conclusion, FPTP has several advantages and disadvantages as mentioned and discussed above that argue for its continued use or abolition as an electoral system.
