• 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. The Impact of Electoral Design on the Legislature.

    The PM elements allow for direct representation, while the PR elements allow for some minority representation, more voter choice and party accountability (as described below). Because there are fewer and more distinctly different parties, this system discourages coalition governments, allowing for a stronger and more coherent parliamentary opposition.

  2. Is Britain a two-party or a multi party system, or something else?

    both a two-party system, and a multi-party system, the "something else" referred to in the title I will concentrate on is one of a 'dominant party system'. Andrew Heywood in Britain's dominant-party system suggests that in a pluralist system, it is possible to have one party dominating the elections.

  1. Russia - political past, present and future

    Russia also did not put much effort in developing the law system. While the United States had already an established constitution and more or less developed law and judiciary systems, and Britain Crown had almost no power, the Czar in Russia was the constitution, the law, and together with the church held enormous amount of unquestionable authority.

  2. Political accountability -Parliament and the courts

    The current Labour government does not underestimate the powers of these committees. After the aftermath of Labour's 2001 election victory their whips attempted to influence the membership of the committees. The attempt was unsuccessful and the committee chairs whom the government had sought to expel were reinstated.

  1. Should the UK reform its system for General Elections?

    Areas such as the South West which has a strong Liberal Democrat history, has never been represented in Government, and so the system can be said to be unfair and undemocratic. Secondly, our electoral system is said to be democratic, yet the third party (Liberal Democrats)

  2. Decentralization and development of modern local government systems in Eastern Europe

    However, after the first, generally precarious stage (that is, the establishment of rules for truly free elections by the former, nondemocratically elected parliament), chances for systematic development are better. Naturally, in different countries these models were realized with unique national corrections.

  1. Civil Service Reform.

    The Next Steps agencies which evolved out of the FMI initiative are perhaps the single most significant reform of this period. The most important feature of the 'Next Steps' programme was the division between policy making and policy delivery. The former was to remain with slimmed down central government departments

  2. What is the purpose of elections and do they guarantee a democracy?

    has enabled Le Pen's fascist 'Front National' party to feature highly in the political orderii. However, the validity of this suggestion can be questioned. Both John Major of the UK and Silvio Berlisconi of Italy were elected under the first-past-the-post system.

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