Furthermore, the system tends to (on the whole) produce stable government. Stability requires there to be one party in government, with a majority of seats in Parliament. This government must be legitimate and should serve its full time in office (in Britain, this is 4-5 years), while governments on the whole should not collapse frequently if they claim to be stable. In the vast majority of cases, Simple Plurality produces stable governments, and also governments which are straightforward (i.e. not coalitions). The average length of government in Britain is 3.5 years – relatively good when one considers the length of a term. Also indicating stability are the low number of government changes since 1945 (six), and the two very lengthy Conservative ‘patches’. While there have been three examples of stability in 58 years (small gaps between General Elections), the statistics imply that Simple Plurality does produce stable government. Not only that, but this stability gives rise to continuity, allowing government policies to develop.
The fact that Simple Plurality results in a single party usually winning outright means that the doctrine of mandate and manifesto can operate. This means that parties campaign in elections with a clear manifesto and, if they win, they will have the authority to implement said manifesto. This cannot be said of coalition governments – with a set of hybrid policies being adopted, nobody has voted for the final package.
Finally, the single-member constituency system built into Simple Plurality creates and safeguards a strong link between British communities and their MPs. It is expected that the MP will represent their interests, irrespective of party allegiance, both in Parliament and directly to the government.
Unfortunately, the system is deeply flawed. To begin with, it is grossly unfair toward smaller parties. In the British General Election of 7th June 2001, Labour won 41% of votes and 63% seats. However, the Conservatives received 33% of votes yet only 25% of the seats, while the Liberal Democrats won 19% of votes but a mere 8% of the seats. Therefore, the British system under-represents smaller parties (who win a smaller percentage of seats than votes) and over-represents larger parties (who win a smaller percentage of votes than seats). This is called the “distorting mirror effect”, wherein stable government is achieved at the expense of smaller parties. In this way, Simple Plurality turns a 3-party system in terms of votes into a 2-party Parliamentary system.
Furthermore, on some occasions the party which got the most votes has lost the election. In the 1929 election, the Tories had more votes than Labour but fewer seats, while in the 1951 election, Labour had more votes than Tories but fewer seats. Therefore, in some cases, the British system allows a government to rule which does not speak for the majority (or largest minority) of the people, thus directly undermining the definition of an electoral system. It is feared that this could happen again.
Unlike European governments, British governments do not speak for a majority of their citizens. In fact, every government since 1945 has been elected on a minority vote. Examples of this can be found in the General Election results of 1979, where the Tories got 43.9% of the vote, and 1983, where they got 42.4% of the vote. On both these occasions, the majority of voters voted against the government, yet this government came to power – surely this is not a fair system at work?
One purpose of an electoral system is to allow people with fresh ideas an opportunity to enter the political arena. However, in 1983, the electoral system did not reflect changes in public opinion since 1979. This was down to the Tories losing votes yet winning 58 more seats than 1979. Not only that, but several million votes changed hands from Tory and Labour to the Liberal/SDP Alliance – these several million votes culminated in the winning of only 9 seats. Therefore, the British electoral system has failed to reflect changes in public opinion (as it rewarded a party which had lost popularity), therefore undermining one purpose of an electoral system. This could happen again.
Furthermore, the British electoral system has a tendency to distort the value of the vote. In theory, the value of a vote for one party should be equal to that of another, but this is not the case in Britain. A Labour vote is roughly 4x the value of a Liberal Democrat vote, and approximately 2x the value of a Conservative vote. As this means that Labour requires less votes than the Conservatives or Lib Dems to gain one seat in Parliament, and since a Lib Dem or Conservative voter’s vote is less valuable than that of a Labour voter, there is within the British electoral system inequality of the vote, both for the party and the voter. This is deeply unfair, and one could go so far as to argue that the British electoral system uses value of the vote to discriminate against certain parties.
The British electoral system is also dangerous in that it worsens the geo-political divide, where political divisions coincide with geographical divisions. It is evident from the Regional Election results of June 1987 that the majority of Labour voters reside in Scotland, North England and Wales (i.e. the North and West), while most Conservative votes came from the South and East – Greater London etc. Therefore, the British electoral system reinforces the geo-political divide by over and under-representing certain parties. This reinforced divide could lead to more intense opposition between the two ‘sides’ and, potentially, internal conflict culminating in civil war.
Finally, the British electoral system tends to discriminate against parties whose support is distributed evenly across the country. For example, in one election, the SDP got 3.5 million votes and 6 seats, whereas the Official Unionists (who only stand in NI) got 0.25 million votes and 11 seats. This is yet another unfairness in the system.
In my opinion, the British electoral system is in need of drastic change. Simple Plurality may provide stable governments, but these governments tend to be elected on a minority of votes – they do not represent the majority of the people. In fact, not one British government since 1945 has been elected on a majority vote. Furthermore, the system may be quick, inexpensive and easy to use, but these are merely practicalities. Surely people would rather wait 7-8 days for a result if it represented the views of a majority of people. Essentially, the British electoral system is deeply unfair. It discriminates against smaller parties and parties whose support is distributed evenly across the country, while giving Labour voters more value for their vote than those who vote for the Tories or Lib Dems. The system even provokes political violence by reinforcing the geo-political divide. In conclusion, the British electoral system is unfair, discriminatory, potentially dangerous and does has a track record of failing to provide the British people with the government it voted for. Therefore, it undermines many aspects of the concept of an electoral system, and is in need of drastic reform.
