Should the UK reform its system for General Elections?

For centuries Britain has used and adapted the First Past The Post (FPTP) Electoral system. It has been developed through a growing country that is reflected in the unwritten constitution. FPTP is arranged whereby the country is split into constituencies, and any candidate (as long as he/she pays a £500 deposit) may stand to be elected. The candidate with the largest share of votes wins the seat, is elected to Parliament and becomes an MP. The MP has the right to go to every Parliament session and vote on legislation for the four or five year term. The candidate usually stands under a party name. This means when an MP under a party name gets a seat, that party gets a seat. The party with the majority of seats then gains power and becomes the Government. This is called the General Election. The Government is drawn from Parliament and chosen by the PM, they run the country until the next General Election in four of five years time, at the Government’s discretion. This system is often called undemocratic and indirect so by analysing its weaknesses and the possible alternatives, it will be possible to determine whether it is desirable to reform the voting system.

There has been much talk in favour of reforming the voting system mainly because FPTP is, in places, undemocratic and bias. The first report of the suggestion of reformation came from the Jenkins’ Report, 1988. It stated that FPTP tends to disunite rather than unite our country. This is mainly because it exaggerates opinions and movements and concentrates support.

When a party wins a seat, that constituency is represented by (affiliated to) that party. This means that trends appear where groups of constituencies close to one another are represented by the same party. This results in a concentration of support. For example: traditionally, the South East, where the general population is wealthier than that of other areas, has supported the Conservatives. With geographical trends like these, areas of the country go without representation in Government for long periods of time. 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) gets a disproportionate amount of seats in comparison to the vote. Not only does First Past The Post make it very hard for the Liberal Democrats to get a seat (one seat cost them over 90,000 votes in 2001), but as they are not in Government, the Party’s manifesto cannot be carried out and so they are not ever represented fully. This raises the question that with a more representative system: would Liberal Democrats and their supporters gain more representation or even power? Evidently, it is the choice of candidate and party that should be recognised and that majority choice given precedence. However, though many may think we have a choice in a General Election, often it is limited. Firstly, when voting, a voter may choose only from the list they are given. The party chooses the candidate for that constituency. This means a voter may wish the party to be in power, but not the candidate representing the party. They therefore must make a compromise, which should not be the case in a democratic system. The freedom to choose is taken away and therefore it is a flaw in the system. Secondly: though a voter may wish a party to be in government, they have no choice over the Prime Minister or his entire cabinet. These posts are extremely important, because they make the vital decisions on policy and direction. The fact that, again, this duty is not given to the electorate shows that the system is far from democratic. N.B. It can be argued that as the electorate votes in the MPs, who in turn vote in the PM, who in turn chooses his cabinet, they are being indirectly represented. The concept of indirect representation shows that power is being taken away from the electorate. As the sole purpose of the General Election is put the government in power that is chosen democratically by the people, FPTP fails to do so in directly democratic manner. This highlights the need for a new electoral system where choice is given, and that choice is honoured directly, so that the system is democratic.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The final, and most commonly stated reason for electoral reform, is the bias and disproportionate ratio of votes: seats. Due to the fact that only a majority vote is needed, when three candidates stand, only 34% of the votes is needed. This means that over 60% of the constituency did not vote for the winning candidate. This in-turn means that a party can have well below 50% of the votes, and still gain power. Where marginals and safe seats are concerned, it defies the statement that in a democracy each vote has the same value and importance. Of course this is not true, where, in a marginal (or swinging seat), a few votes on either side can make the difference between which party gets the seat, and therefore has an influence on the Government. However, in safe seats, the voter makes no difference to who gets the seat, and so his/her vote is negligible compared to that of a voter in a marginal. This difference in importance of vote is not a feature of democracy, and is another flaw of the system. This feature favours the larger parties who can campaign all over the country and get key marginals. The smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats cannot compete. This is often overlooked. The amount of money a party has, the more campaigning and influence potential it has, therefore the more likely it is to gain seats and power. Again, this emphasises the need for a change of electoral system, so that every person has an equal vote and the majority vote presides.

Though it is possible that FPTP could be scrapped, a more democratic alternative would need to be implemented. Obviously, the first one to be considered would be Proportional Representation. This means that a party will receive the same % of seats as % of total national vote. This means that it will eliminate all marginals, safe seats and the spin that goes with them. It will also create a fair government that is directly representing the electorate. However, the disadvantages are that it usually creates a coalition Government because there is no clear majority. This makes a Government weak and ineffective. PR has proven to work, and many new countries are adopting for General Elections. The only second alternative that will increase the democracy and representation is the Second Ballot system. This means holding a second ballot two weeks after the first. The results are published, in some countries parties with lower percentages are eliminated. The second ballot allows everyone to vote again, voting differently from his or her first if they wish. The winning party is elected. This can be adapted into a constituency system like the UK. The advantages are no coalition government, people have more choice and the winning party has a higher percentage of population behind them. The disadvantages are that, the higher percentage does not correctly represent the parties’ share of the vote, it may still lead to marginals and safe seats, and the Government may still be distant and indirect. There are other possible systems such as STF and AVS, but these would only add to the problems and make it more indirect and undemocratic.

However many reasons there are to scrap FPTP, the critics cannot deny it has its benefits and advantages. Its first advantage is that it nearly always creates strong Government. Though there is a bias towards larger parties, the large majority in Parliament means legislation can pass, and the manifesto can be implemented. The strong MP relationship means that the Executive has communication links with the electorate all over the country, helping the democratic process. The FPTP system also offers a political battleground where ideas can be deliberated. This competition allows the parties to offer the manifesto that will best help the people, and therefore, it is better for the citizens, who get the most helpful and reasonable policies implemented. The simple system has been used for centuries and it is easy to understand. The British public is used to it, and generally accepts the system.

There are many critics of the FPTP electoral system used in the UK. There will always be criticisms of the fact that it does not deliver a very democratically elected Government. The reluctance for new countries to take on the system shows its reputation for indirect democracy and often apathy. It could be argues that what the UK needs is a change of its whole political system to a presidential system, possibly encouraging political participation and democracy. However any change is unlikely in the near future as Labour are prospering with huge majorities in the House of Commons. Therefore there is no need for them to change the electoral system even slightly.

Should the UK reform its system for General Elections?

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

Should the UKadopt a system of PR for General Elections?

Reform in European Union Elections

Consider the arguments for and against retaining first-past-the-post for ge...

"Recent general election results have shown the need for electoral reform."...