• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Consider the arguments for and against retaining first-past-the-post for general elections

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Consider the arguments for and against retaining first-past-the-post for general elections The first-past-the-post system has for the last century served British politics well, if not adequately enough to be maintained unquestioned. This idea was backed by a certain amount of British arrogance. There was the assumption that the British system of government was for various reasons better than that of other Western European states. Firstly, Britain was a great political and economic power for the first half of the 20th century. Secondly, the British system has been extremely efficient in avoiding political extremism, especially at a time when both fascism and Communism were faring particularly well in much of Europe. Thirdly, the maintenance of stability and strong government where European proportionality failed. However, the emergence of a significant third party in the 70s has refuelled the arguments for change. The shortcomings of first-past-the-post were highlighted in the 1983 general election when the Liberal/SDP Alliance received 25% of the national vote, and for it got only 3.5% of the seats in parliament. This clearly seems to be unfair. Before the arguments for and against the retention of first-past-the-post for general elections can be established, the main features of the system must first be outlined. ...read more.

Middle

The adversarial two-party system has been criticised for encouraging abrupt change in policy direction. These frequent reversals of policy in important areas may be damaging to the country. A neglection of the virtues of accountability, and a multi-party government would therefore create greater consistency. It could be argued that this consistency in policy would lead to greater stability than currently present under the first-past-the-post system. The prospects for electoral reform don't look too great. The issue is fairly unimportant to the majority of the electorate. Furthermore the nature of first-past-the-post benefits the government. A party in government backing electoral reform would have to accept the fact they would probably lose seats as a result. Any serious debate about electoral reform has the possibility of being biased depending on individuals party allegiances i.e. a Liberal Democrat supporter may oppose the retention of first-past-the-post simply because it penalises their party, rather than because of an objective opinion that the current system is unfair and undesirable. Support for electoral reform grew in the Labour Party during its 18 years of opposition. However after the landslide of the 1997 election, many doubters kept quiet. ...read more.

Conclusion

As did elections for the Greater London Authority. Elections for the London Mayor were by the supplementary method. The single transferable vote is used for the newly created Northern Island Assembly and for Northern Island's elections to the European Parliament. As of 1999, the party list system is used for British elections to the European Parliament. Each of these systems is different and invariably flawed in some way. But that isn't the point. The point is why hasn't first-past-the-post been used for any of these newly created elections?. Clearly our current system isn't good enough for newly created elections. One can only assume that the only reason we still use it for general elections is the traditionally conservative British nature. Or perhaps the government realise first-past-the-post is heavily flawed but enjoy its unfairness too much to give up seats where they really count. The Jenkins report is itself the strongest argument against the retention of first-past-the-post. There is no such argument of a similar depth and intelligence which supports retaining first-past-the-post. The Conservatives commented that' accountability, strong government and a "fair" distribution of seats cannot be easily reconciled.' This may be true, but AV-Plus would get far closer to this ideal than first-past-the-post does. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Politics essays

  1. Minority parties in Britain call for electoral reform whereas the two major parties tend ...

    being based on single-member constituencies, whereby the voter chooses a single candidate the represent them, a strong link is ensured between the MP and the voter. Such a link is weakened in a multi-member constituency, or in systems in which the national parties propose the candidates.

  2. Political accountability -Parliament and the courts

    An example of this is the new practice that has been developed whereby the prime minister must subject himself to interrogation by the House of Commons liaison committee every six months. The relationship between Parliament and the government is somewhat controversial.

  1. The effect of the three consecutive general elections on the labour party

    During the 1987 and 1993 elections the Conservative party became victims to their own success, they began to believe their own hype. They were so pre occupied with Europe and getting rid of the 'wets' that her style had almost become presidential.

  2. Should the 1997 general election be viewed as a 'critical election'?

    make themselves finally a strong political party that was capable of winning a general election once again, and being an electoral body. The Labour party showed that it meant business in the way that they challenged the trade unionists which was something that hadn't occurred before then.

  1. America has a two-party political system.

    consolidating the existing debt and taking the liability to the government. This however caused controversy as Jefferson, a Virginian, had commented that, like his state, many states had almost paid off their debt and these states would be taxed in order to pay other states debt.

  2. Malta at the turn of the 19th Century.

    However this problem was not totally solved, as the proposed directions were in order to strengthen a bit the forts. The architecture demanded to cut off some parts of the fortifications and place gunpowder. The schemes were not implemented and it was not until the early 1840s that there were further proposals to defend the Cottonera Lines.

  1. The Impact of Electoral Design on the Legislature.

    Further, in highly divided societies a semi-proportional system would likely lead to less polarisation than in a PR system. It provides for a stronger link between legislators and their constituents, since legislators represent particular geographic areas rather than just parties.

  2. The position of the New Labour government with Tony Blair ahead of that government.

    Also, monetary policy was left to be run independently of government as the control over the level of interest rates was handed to the Bank of England, so that decisions about the rates of interest would be made on economic rather than political grounds.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work