"Voters choices are better reflected By Systems of PR than FPTP." Discuss.

Recent elections for the Scottish and Welsh (both 1999) assemblies have shown that FPTP would be the better option. In each election, the party who gained the most seats (Welsh-Labour 28 seats, Scottish-Scottish Labour Party 55 seats) had received less than fifty percent of the number of seats, leading to coalitions between the parties. In both cases, the Additional Member System was used. The Single Transferable Vote was used in the 1999 European Parliament elections, which saved Labour, as a huge percent of their vote was lost, while the Conservatives gained the most seats. The most notable outcome of this election was the turnout of the electorate. Out of the 44,000,000 of the electorate, only 10,000,000 voted, in other words, a turnout of around 25%. This was down from the 30% the previous election; an indication that perhaps some people were worried about the new system, and it is thought more would of voted if the system used would have been FPTP. It is still a poor turnout when compared to Belgium's 90% turnout in the same election.

The outcome of the last election if proportional representation was used would be the same in the way of percentage of votes, yet the number of seats would be very different. Labour's current stance at 412 seats would be slashed down to around 300; the Conservatives would gain a few up to 250 or so seats, and the Lib. Dems. Would receive around 100. It would have seen a lot more seats going to smaller parties and extremist parties. Labour would have had to form a coalition government to gain a full majority.

Disadvantages of FPTP are more to do with misrepresentation. In 1997, the Liberal Democrats won the Winchester seat by 2 votes, which seems harsh to the electorate of that constituency to be represented by a party most don't want. In America, the most recent general election producing a strange result using FPTP, George Bush won the election with fewer votes than his opposition. Similar results have occurred in Britain in the 50's and early 70's. Another case of misrepresentation occurred in 1983, when the Liberal Democrats earned 25.4% of votes and only got 23 seats, while Labour received 27.6% of votes while obtaining 209 seats. This makes people feel that FPTP is an unfair system, as in 1983, a quarter of the people who voted were represented by 3.5% of the seats. Though it is noted that parties only complain about the system when they are not in power. As Labour complained throughout the eighties, yet do not feel the need for a reform now as they are in power.

The best advantage that all forms of PR has over FPTP is the choice that voters have. In STV, there are multi member constituencies, allowing most of the electorate to be represented in parliament. The electorate can also vote for more than one candidate in order of preference, allowing the electorate to vote for their favourite policies a party puts forward, while also showing interest in other party policies. AMS allows the electorate to vote for a favoured MP and a favoured party, and in the National List system allows the voter to vote for just a party, eradicating wasted votes.

The statement that was made earlier was that coalitions are weak, but is that the case? Germany has had a coalition for over 20 years, and has the largest economy in Europe. In Scandinavia, taxes are high, yet public services are very high quality. Though they tend to disagree, it has been shown that a coalition can work well together. Also, in the Scottish assembly, the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition has been successful, free heating for the elderly and a ban on fox hunting, as well as the scrapping of student tuition fees among their successes.

Each electoral system has both their respective good and bad points, revealing that no electoral system is perfect. Although PR offers the voter a lot more choice than FPTP, voters may be confused as to how the system works, and turnout may decrease. It is evident that the parties want reform a lot more than the people, perhaps displaying the public's satisfaction with the FPTP system, and perhaps also showing that the electorate would rather have a strong government than a coalition. Though the main arguments are about fairness for the smaller parties and a chance for people to be fairly represented, which are against FPTP. The main arguments for FPTP are a strong government and its simplicity. The argument will continue for many years, as the party in power can implement it, it is unlikely to as FPTP is more favourable to stay in power.