Would British Political Parties Benefit From A Different Electoral System?
In Britain, elections to the House of Commons are decided through a simple majority system, commonly referred to as ‘first-past-the-post’ or FPTP. The system has its benefits, as it usually produces quick and clear results and a strong majority government. Moreover, it provides constituents with a strong link to their MP, enabling them to bring forward and discuss the interests of their community. However, there are strong arguments against FPTP. Firstly, it frequently produces disproportionate results between actual support for the party and the seats they win in parliament. Secondly, the nature of the system makes it difficult for smaller parties with dispersed support to gain high levels of representation, rendering it virtually impossible for them to participate in government. These deficiencies have led to the question of how democratic the system really is, which has resulted in electoral reform becoming a debatable political issue.
There are many different alternatives to FPTP, most of which are far more proportionally representative. These include open and closed Party Lists, the Additional Member System (AMS), the Alternative Vote (AV), the Alternative Vote Plus (AV+) and the Single Transferable Vote (STV).
Political parties in Britain maintain different and variable views on the issue of electoral reform. The majority of the Conservative party have traditionally been against modifying the existing system. Having always enjoyed the status of a major party and having won many elections under FPTP, it could be assumed that they would not benefit particularly from a change in the system. Certainly, a switch to full representation would not appear to be to their advantage. Those who oppose such reform argue that PR systems normally result in coalition between parties, which in turn can lead to weaker, less stable government. Another argument is that it would be easier for smaller or extremist parties to gain greater political participation. This could be seen as potentially dangerous for whichever government is in power. Critics of coalition governments often cite Italy as a prime example of a country which suffers from fragmented and weak government. On the other hand, it has been shown that coalition governments have worked well in Germany and Sweden.