First Past The Post has its advocates, mainly the victorious Conservative party. Its exponents argue that the chief aim of government is effective management of the state and not as a microcosm of society, although European elections have, at present, very little power and local elections are grouped into wards of strong social and political bias thereby eroding the picture of distortion. First Past The Post's proportionality is mainly called into question in national elections. A valuable asset of First Past The Post is the link between an MP and their constituency. With a clear identity MP's can assist an individual constituents problems whatever their political stance. MP's may not reflect their whole constituencies views. Edmund Burke told his Bristol constituency "MP's are representatives not delegates". Ground swell opinion can be tested at by-elections where the public can air their views.
The advocarial politics of Parliament reflect the mood of the country and the dominant two party system. Everybody has a chance to form a government, supporters point to the Labour Party ho were once a minor party but now battle for power. The losers, usually Liberals only complain when they lose and Labour may yet jump the bandwagon after their forth electoral defeat. They await the outcome of the report by the Plant Committee. First Past The Post is also cheap to administer, some £10 million, and is easy to understand, giving a clear winning result in hours not days.
First Past The Post's opponents scream "...unfair..." for minority parties, 313 second places for the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the 1983 elections when it took 33,000 votes to elect a Conservative MP, 40,000 for a Labour MP but 339,000 for a Liberal MP. The two main parties can control power even, as in October 1974, when the governing party received less votes than the opposition. Parties with concentrated support benefit but this has also assisted minor parties like the SNP. First Past The Post may seem as a battle fought across the country but nearly 70% of seats are safe at general elections. Local and European elections can often mirror national political moods. There is also a great number of wasted votes, with the more candidates the lower the winning threshold. The 1983 election saw the biggest mismatch in proportionality. "The United Kingdom since 1983 has had the least proportional Parliament in the democratic world. Where a score of 100 means a perfect relationship...and a score of 50 means no association... the 1983 Parliament scored 76 and the 1987 scored 79".
As with all good arguments the best form of defence is attack and in the world of politics this is even more crystallised. Parts of the Conservative party studied electoral reform to no avail. Proportional Representation as an ideology is fairer to small parties without concentrated support. This leads the argument to say that parties have to become more accountable mainly because on our present voting trends no party has a majority of votes under Proportional Representation to form a single party government. "Some countries have managed to have their cake and eat it too; Austria has had Proportional Representation and stable one party cabinets". Coalitions make for weak governments but Germany has had coalition governments since the end of the war and coped well enough. It may be more of a question of advocarial politics against co-operative and compromise politics.
A major headache with Proportional Representation is its different systems. With Proportional Representation there may be no safe seats in the multi member constituency of the Single Transferable Vote but the List system is sit back, relax no need to campaign if your name is at the top of the party list. This safe seat system travels into choice of candidates, with no choice of candidates in the List system but a greater choice even between wings of the same party in the Single Transferable Vote. This greater choice of candidate in the Single Transferable Vote may go some way to reduce negative voting. With the decline in tactical voting, each vote would tip the balance back towards one vote, one value, reducing wasted votes as occurs in First Past The Post. Issues can, on the List system, be stifled but the Single Transferable Vote and multi member constituencies allow local issues to be aired.
Proportional Representation, its systems, are criticised for their complexity, although in this age of technology it is hard to see why, in any system, we haven't moved on from pencil and paper voting. The introduction of a new system would be expensive and take time to run in as opposed to the present system but what price democracy. It is unclear if it would benefit women and ethnic minorities as selection of candidates is still in the hands of the parties.
Every argument has two sides, every system has good and bad points. I lean towards the Single Transferable Vote as an electoral system but it would be interesting to see if a new system changed the gridlock moving from our indirect distorted democracy where the people do not rule. I would not so much change the system as overhaul the approach to modern politics. Parties are elected on manifestos to govern for up to five years but I saw no mention of pit closures in the Conservative manifesto. Election systems are the distraction that "...ensures electoral reform remains on the intellectual if not the political agenda..."
Ben Richardson 12CH
