FPTP ensures that there are strong links between an MP and the local community, which other PR systems may not provide, for example if the closed lists systems were adopted, constituencies would be larger and parties would choose the candidates, therefore, making MPs less accountable to the voters. Small single-member constituencies mean that local people can express their objections directly with their MP. MPs have a singular responsibility for the area which they represent and, once elected, they represent all those who live in the area, not just those who voted for them.
A contention why our electoral system should not be reformed is that FPTP is easily understood by the voter. Each elector has to vote once by putting one cross in one box and the candidate with the most votes is the winner. PR systems tend to be more complex and are not as easy for the voter to understand, for example, the Single Transferable Vote system (STV) means first the voters rank the candidates in order of preference, then the votes are then counted by successively removing the candidates with least votes and allocated their second choices to remaining candidates, until all but one candidate has dropped out, or one candidate has over half the remaining votes.
Any system which takes decision making away from the electorate and gives it to the Parties is bad for democracy. All that is achieved by this is the cementing of the party system into the democratic process with no hope of promoting independent thought or action amongst the MPs. No MP will be willing to stand against their own party on matters of principle when they rely entirely on that party for their seat in Parliament. For this reason the electoral systems which specifically include a vote for a party, the Open and Closed Party Lists, should not be considered as suitable alternative voting systems.
STV produces competition between candidates from the same party, which could cause divisions within parties because of election campaigns. This would lead to a weak government.
Another reason why our current electoral system of FPTP should be preserved is because it has been proved to work over many years. All electoral systems are flawed, so there is little point in replacing one flawed system with another. Anything that allows politicians to distance themselves from the people that elected them is bad for democracy. PR takes power from the people and gives it to the parties. It is ultimately far less representative than the FPTP System where an unpopular government can be swept away in one day. This is why some believe FPTP should be retained and any talk of PR should be viewed as an attempt to undermine the system of Parliamentary Democracy.
It also could be argued that the UK does need to adopt a system of PR for general elections because the current system does not represent the majority of people views and is therefore undemocratic.
A poll conducted in 1998 titled ‘Make Votes Count’ saw that 72% of the public said they will vote ‘yes’ to replace the current FPTP system with a PR system and nearly 3 of every 5 said the current system for governing the UK needs to be improved ‘quite a lot’ or ‘a good deal’.
A reason for reforming the current electoral system of FPTP is that in recent years the turnout to general elections has fallen dramatically. At the 1997 General Election the turnout was 71.6%, which was the lowest since the Second World War and the 2001 General Election saw a turnout of 59.4%, the lowest since 1918’s 57% (a year in which many voters had still not returned to their homes after military service). The dramatic fall in turnout is seen as a result of a number of contributing factors; socio-economic pressures, demographic changes, a decline in party identification (increased from 7% in 1997 to 10% in 2001) and the electoral system.
The results of the 2001 election illustrate that a strong factor in turnout is the public’s perception of the importance of their vote. In safe seats, where many voters may have felt that their vote would not count or make a difference, turnouts fell very low. For example, in 1997 in Liverpool Riverside there was a turnout of 34.1% and Labour won with a 21,799 majority, in Glasgow Shettleston the turnout was 39.7% and Labour won with a majority of 15,868. However, turnouts in marginal seats were generally higher, for example, in Winchester the turnout was 72.3% and the Liberal Democrats won with a majority of 2, in Hexham the turnout was 70.9% and the Conservative won with a majority of 222.
The predictability of FPTP elections acts as a disincentive to voters and is therefore a reason why we need electoral reform in the UK. Constituencies in which the governing party has a large majority tend to produce predictable results. For supporters of political parties that had little chance of winning, there would be little motivation to make the effort involved in casting a vote, as that action is unlikely to affect the result.
A cause for reform is that FPTP leaves minority parties, such as the Liberal Democrats under-represented in parliament and discourages people to vote for them as they feel their vote would be ‘wasted’. For example, in 1983 Labour won 27.6% of the votes and gained 209 seats, whereas the Alliance Party (later joining with the Social Democrat Party to form the Liberal Democrats) won 25.4% of the vote (the biggest proportion of the vote won by a third party since 1923), but they only gained 23 seats. Because the Liberal Democrats’ electoral support tends to be evenly spread throughout the country, they come second in many seats and first in only a few. FPTP is an adversarial system which is based around there being two main parties, currently Labour and the Conservatives. Because some people feel that their first choice, the liberal democrats would be a wasted vote, they use their vote against one of the two main parties they do not want to see in power. Introducing a PR system would mean that people would not have to vote tactically for fear of their vote being ‘wasted’ if they supported a minority party.
The current system needs reforming because it has a regional imbalance. For example, in the 1997 general election no Conservative MPs were elected in Scotland or Wales although the party won 17.5% and 19.6% of the vote in these regions.
The majority of PR systems assure the winning candidate and party gain more than 50% of the vote, making the systems more democratic. At present we have a voting system where many votes don't count - in the 2001 Election 12.5 million votes (49%) didn't help to elect an MP and currently 58.1% of people in the UK are not represented by the government. This century, only the 1931 and 1935 elections have been won with more than 50% of the vote, and in both cases a National Government was elected rather than a single party.
We need to introduce a system of PR to the UK because the current system discourages voters since there is only one MP standing for each party in each constituency. This MP may not share the same views within the party as the voter, for example, the voter may support Tony Blair’s views, but the Labour MP for their constituency is Tony Benn, an extreme socialist maverick MP.
Because FPTP produced governments with such large majorities, the government can rely on its overall majority to pass legislation and bypass Parliament, regardless of the criticisms made by the opposition. Debates in the Commons rarely change anything and therefore reform is needed to keep checks on the government. For example, in 1990 Margaret Thatcher was able to introduce poll tax because of her large majority although there was a huge opposition from other parties and some within the Conservative party. Other systems would stop majorities being so large and allow Parliament to keep closer checks on the government.
FPTP means that MPs are not accountable to the majority of their constituents because they do not usually gain over 50% of the vote. If a system of PR were introduced it would mean that MPs would be accountable to a majority of their constituents.
There are many PR systems which the UK could adopt, all with their advantages and disadvantages and by examining them we are able to see if they are suitable for the UK.
One PR system is STV, which has been proved to work effectively for the European Elections in Ireland. It enables voters to choose not only between parties, but also between different candidates standing for the same party. It allows voters to express their preferences within and between parties and to vote cross party on the preferences if they so wish. It thereby allows voters to express a more refined view about personalities, policies and issues and encourages people to vote. Although with STV the constituencies are larger, there are more MPs per constituency, and it is likely that there will be candidates representing a range of parties. This means more electorates will have an MP accountable to them from the party they support. However, the STV system was used to elect the Northern Ireland Assembly, Stoma, which has recently collapsed, although this is more likely due to the political parties’ situation, than the electoral system.
The List system gives the voter a degree of choice between candidate and party and leads to highly proportional results. However, the closed-list system also tends to give the party a great degree of control in deciding which candidates will be elected from the party list. Lists also encourage minority parties, but can make it easier for extremist parties to come into power.
The AMS gives voters more say than FPTP because they can vote for a person and a party. It has been successful in Germany where a coalition government has been formed between the Social Democrats and the Green Party. Under this system more votes count making it more democratic and it removes the fact that some parties are over represented in Parliament.
However, the UK could benefit from adopting a new electoral system that is not proportional. There are four main approaches the UK could take.
The Alternative Vote ensures that no one can be elected in a constituency unless they have at least 50% of the votes. It means that there are less wasted votes and encourages people to vote for who they support, even if they are minorities. However, it does not lead to a nationally proportional result.
The Suplimentary Vote system, used to elect the Lord Major of London, also ensures that the candidate recieves over 50% of the vote. It is simpler than the Alternative Vote system and means that it is less likely that weaker candidates with lots of second preferences would win. However, the supplementary vote has only a marginally more proportional effect than the first-past-the-post system, so it would hardly be worth introducing it.
The Second Ballot System allows voters to vote in light of how others voted. However, it is not proportional and does not allow for smaller parties to get fair representation. The system discourages voters because they have to turnout twice and many do not bother, although it is the second vote that often decides. If there is a low turnout for FPTP where the public only have to vote once, I doubt the second ballot system would do very well in the UK.
After coming into power in 1997, Labour established an Independent Commission, under the chairmanship of Lord Jenkins, that recommended a new electoral system for Westminster called the Alternative Vote Plus (AV+).This is a system which combines an increase in proportionality with a strong link between voter and MP and increases the ability of each elector to choose the candidate who best represents them.
If the public voted in a similar way to that of 1997, Labour would still have had a majority of 77 and be a single party government. If there were smaller minorities, this system could occasionally lead to coalition governments.
However, the Jenkins Commission recommended AV+ before Britain had its own experience of additional members systems, used to form the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. It is now necessary to consider whether the Jenkins Commission might have come to a different conclusion if the lessons of these experiences had been available to them
Overall, I believe that the UK should reform its electoral system, but I think it should adopt the Jenkins Commission and AV+. The Independent Commission would have considered all types of reform, looked at the UK’s political history, and produced a system that would best suit it.
Although FPTP is not the uniquely British idiocy that it is sometimes portrayed as, it is used in 62 countries, covering more than half the world's electors, it has many faults, and I feel it allows the government to become too powerful with large majorities. I also feel that because of the UK’s political history, coalition governments would not be seen as strong governments. Although AV+ may sometimes produce coalitions it is least likely than any other system to do so and it does allow for single-party governments.
