There are also other issues with PR systems to consider; in the main they produce a coalition government. Even if a completely proportional system such as the list system is used, if a coalition government does prevail it means in virtually every circumstance that the junior partner yields disproportionate power, is this fair? For example in the German election in 2002 the SPD went into coalition with the Green party. The Greens came forth in the election with 8.9% of the vote but as they formed a coalition they obtained the second most amount of power despite the CDU gaining over 3 times as much of the vote with 29.5%. Therefore the PR system has failed to provide power in accordance to seats and on top of this the coalition is very weak and the new Government is anything but stronger and decisive. The majority of the new government is so slender that the parties will forever be arguing over polices, and the 2 parties in the coalition arguing over polices.
Another argument against FPTP is it discriminates and squeezes minor parties so they have virtually no power at all. Any PR system would benefit minor parties; you can see this by using the example of AV+. Using this system in England would mean minor parties would double up on votes. This would be beneficial in some ways as parties like the green parties would obtain more power and are able to press the government on environmental issues more.
However this also means small, separatist parties like BNP would gain more power, this is a definite argument against a PR system.
Another advantage of introducing a PR system is that it increases voter choice, there will be less wasted votes and its less likely tactical voting will be needed. The turnout at general elections in England is deceasing quickly. The main reason being that people don’t think there votes count for anything. This can be seen by comparing turnout in England to Germany who use a PR system:
If the 40% of the UK that didn’t vote, all voted for the green party then they would be in power!! Its clear from the table that a PR system increase turnout and voter choice, but if a coalition occurs then the policies you may have voted, will probably change or be completely overturned so what in fact did you vote for, doesn’t; this mean voter choice is severely distorted? This leads back to the main point PR systems are supposed to be fairer, but in a roundabout way they find other issues making them unfair to.
Another argument against FPTP is that 2 parties are over represented and either one or the other always ends up in power. Thus a PR system in principal could solve this problem by spreading out the balance of power, but in practice labour and the liberal democrats would probably end up in coalition and they could be in power for decades!!
FPTP is also known for its poor social representation, in particular ethnic minorities and women are poorly represented. Even though the government is trying to solve these issues with the use of positive discrimination. A PR system would help social representation. In fact, of the countries using PR systems, 25-33% are women or ethnic. Vastly superior than England, whose minorities are severally under represented.
FPTP has also got many advantages. It’s very simple, everyone understands it, not complex like many of the PR systems that reward second and third places. We also know roughly what the outcome will be and for most part we know it will produce a strong and decisive government. Countries, which have switched from FPTP to PR have in fact experienced many problems. For example New Zealand who are now using MMP, was supposed to give better political representation and give more power to the people, that’s not what happened. A coalition formed, which was very unstable and eventually spit, the government only survived due to help from independents. One party gained virtually no votes in the next election as it decided to form a coalition with a party it had formerly apposed. Many people would argue ifs is working why change it? And if we use New Zealand, as an example should we give up a strong and decisive government in order to try and achieve better social and political representation? Is it even worth taking the risk?
In conclusion I think I should answer the questions I proposed at the start, I think of the 4 principals: Political representation, social representation, decisive government and voter choice, having a strong, stable and decisive government is the most important, therefore I am against changing FPTP to a PR system in the UK. I do not believe its possible to strike a balance between fairness and decisive government because of the human nature. I don’t agree that decisive government or elective dictatorships are necessarily always correct, but in the right hands they are best. I have come to this conclusion because I feel that most of the arguments against FPTP have big faults anyway, but most importantly I am firmly against coalition governments as it causes so many arguments and problems, as well as the fact that humans are incapable of finding a middle ground. This is magnified by the NZ 1sts in New Zealand who forgot about everything they had campaigned for just for a slice of power! No electoral system can ever cater for the characteristics of human nature
