Using examples, discuss the advantages/disadvantages of proportional representation systems compared to the ‘first past the post’ system as used in parliamentary elections in the UK.
Using examples, discuss the advantages/disadvantages of proportional representation systems compared to the 'first past the post' system as used in parliamentary elections in the UK.
The United Kingdom, along with a few British influenced states including Canada, maintains the 'first past the post' or 'plurality' system of translating votes into seats in Parliament (Hague 1998). Growing controversy about electoral systems has centred on the rules for translating votes into seats and many have argued that the UK should join the rest of Europe in converting to a system of proportional representation (PR). PR systems attempt to distribute seats in direct proportion to votes. In the plurality system elections are won by the party/individual who gets the most votes. It's the simplest of the electoral systems and is easily understood and employed. Other countries employ a wide range of alternatives, most incorporating some form of PR. Though there are many variations the main PR systems are the party list system, the single transferable vote (STV) and the additional member system (AMS), as used in Germany. Whether or not plurality is the best system has long been debated. By 1920 Britain was the only democratic country in Western Europe not to have adopted some form of PR (Hain 1986).
Advocates of the plurality system, including Peter Hain (1986), besides arguing that the plurality system is the simplest system, maintain that it's preferable to alternative systems for other reasons. Without needing to put down multiple choices, the ballot paper is easy to fill in. The ability for voters to make decisions about clear political policy programmes means elections revolving around the candidates' personalities are discouraged. Plurality results in single member constituencies, which provide for a direct relationship between MPs and constituents. It means that MPs selected by their local party should remain accountable for that area and constituents can vote out any seen to be failing to respond to local needs. There is also a clear winner and candidates can't be elected as a result of 2nd, 3rd or 4th preferences, possibly even beating those with more 1st preferences. The system also permits major changes in policy and direction. Hain argues that voters have more scope to determine the government and elections are less likely to result in a tie with no government elected. Also, the danger of having large numbers of parties standing in elections and shifting coalitions is reduced and minority parties are less likely to get power disproportionately greater than their support (Hain 1986).
However, the reason most countries have dispensed with the plurality system in favour of other electoral systems is because it lacks proportionality. With the plurality system the party achieving the most votes wins, although most of the electorate might have voted against them. For example, the Conservatives might win with 45% of the vote, Labour 30%, Liberal Democrats 15% and The Green Party 10%. In this scenario the Conservatives would still gain a parliamentary majority even though the majority of voters (55%) didn't want the Conservatives in power. Winston Churchill expressed concern over this issue in the Sunday ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
However, the reason most countries have dispensed with the plurality system in favour of other electoral systems is because it lacks proportionality. With the plurality system the party achieving the most votes wins, although most of the electorate might have voted against them. For example, the Conservatives might win with 45% of the vote, Labour 30%, Liberal Democrats 15% and The Green Party 10%. In this scenario the Conservatives would still gain a parliamentary majority even though the majority of voters (55%) didn't want the Conservatives in power. Winston Churchill expressed concern over this issue in the Sunday Chronicle in 1924:
No government which is in a large minority, even if it possesses a working majority in the House of Commons, can have the necessary power to cope with real problems. (Smyth 1992).
It's not unusual for nearly 70% of all votes (those for losing candidates) to be effectively wasted, as they do not count towards the election of the MP. Moreover, votes for winning candidates in safe seats tend to accumulate into huge majorities (The Guardian 1991). The plurality system cannot cope effectively with more than two parties per constituency and in the 1970's and 1980's the plurality system in the United Kingdom produced 2 hung parliaments and more than 100 hung councils (The Guardian 1991). It also results in tactical voting; in 'safe seats' people see no point in voting for the party they support if it seems to have no chance of winning and so vote for another party that stands a better chance of beating the popular party for that area. This means that instead of eliminating small parties it actually increases their share of the vote (Finer 1975). The fact that many votes make no difference contributes to a low turnout at elections and a general disillusionment about politics. It's additionally demoralising for political parties to know that in many constituencies what their policy is, or who their candidates are will make no difference to the outcome.
The party list system, involves all parties choosing a list of candidates. The electorate then vote for the party of their choice and seats are filled by the same proportion of candidates being taken off the top of parties' lists as their proportion of the votes. Advantages to this system include the option of having a high threshold below which small parties will not be able to run. This results in continuation of stable, one party governments a normal characteristic of the plurality system (Hain 1986). It's also easy to ensure minority groups and women are elected. However, the party normally chooses which candidates go on their list and in which order they are placed so this could limit voters' choice, in practise though most countries using this system give voters at least some choice over the candidates. It is used in Guyana, Turkey and in Israel, since it was founded in 1948. Although the Israeli system results in higher ratio of 'effective' votes than even STV and is highly proportional, the country votes as a single constituency and this means an end to local MPs and constituencies (Hain 1986). This reduces the extent to which MPs represent the community and creating a more remote relationship between MPs and the community they represent. The system, although sounding simple, in practise can prove very complicated. In Norway the list system has caused urban voters to be underrepresented due to constituency size and how they are arranged (Hain 1986). It can also lead to lots of small parties in parliament and coalition governments. All PR systems can increase the likelihood of this and it may not necessarily be a bad thing. It means that more people's views can be represented, and "coalition and minority governments have not been noticeably 'weaker' than governments in a two-party situation" (Finer 1975). It is also worth noting that the plurality system has occasionally resulted in coalition governments and "a coalition...can pass its legislation just as easily as a single-party government" (Finer 1975). In the list system it can be overcome through the use of high thresholds for the number of votes a party must win before they are included.
A popular choice for an electoral system in this country is the STV, which has been supported by the Liberal Democrats and Electoral Reform Society. It has been used in the Republic of Ireland since 1922, Malta and Tasmania (Hain 1986). It overcomes the criticism of the list systems' lack of constituency MPs whilst maintaining proportionality. Voters mark as many candidates as they wish, numerically, in order of preference. STV enables voters to choose between candidates within a particular party. By setting a quota of votes to be achieved by parties it effectively excludes smaller parties with less than 15/20% of the vote but is proportional for larger parties. Candidates who achieve the quota on the first count are elected and votes are redistributed so that their votes in excess of the quota are given to voters' 2nd preferences. This process continues until candidates who have achieved the quota have filled all seats. However, STV cannot guarantee a proportional result nationally and the result depends on the size of constituencies, which must be large and uniform multi-member seats for true proportionality. A commission set up by the Hansard Society in 1976 pointed out that Britain's population is too great (Hain 1986). It would result in enormous constituencies where electors would struggle to identify with their MP. In addition to this, the process is complicated and sometimes lengthy. Also, candidates are forced to compete with rivals within their own party. It could cause parties to become less ideologically distinct as they might try to appeal to rival party supporters' 2nd and 3rd choices to get elected.
According to Hain (1986) AMS, as used by Germany, is 98% proportional and a mixed system, combining the first past the post with a party list top up. The electorate must make two votes, one for a candidate and one for a party. This means they can vote for candidate from a different party to the one they support, though in practise this rarely occurs. The German system could be said to have an advantage over the British system by way of a more personal element to voting. Hain (1986) argues in spite of this, that the system results in two 'classes' of MPs: half who have been chosen by the electorate, and half chosen by the party. This could result in resentment of party MPs by those who had to campaign for their posts and claims of greater legitimacy. Hain (1986) also insists that many of those in parliament would not be democratically accountable to the electorate. Additionally, the constituencies would need to expand, raising similar problems to those found in the list system; MPs could be accused of not representing their constituency and being remote from local issues. If AMS was used in Britain this would mean either doubling the number of MPs or doubling the size of constituencies, this raises practical problems such as the House of Commons needing to be rebuilt.
Lord Jenkins has recently suggested a variation on the AMS called the Alternative Votes Top-Up system (AV), as a compromise between PR and plurality systems (The Guardian 1998). It is a majority system which claims to improve on the plurality system by ensuring that a party/candidate must get at least 50% of the vote in order to get elected. Finer has argued, "For a government to claim a 'mandate' to carry out its policy, it ought to be elected by at least half the voters" (Finer 1975).
The electorate vote for a top-up MP and then constituency MPs, ranked in order of preference. If no candidate reaches 50% of the votes the least popular candidate would be eliminated and their votes redistributed to voters' 2nd choices. The rest of the MPs (about 15-20%) would be top-up MPs, chosen locally. The system suggested is very similar to those used for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Constituencies would be kept but would be redrawn and grow slightly as a result. It's not a PR system; the number of seats does not reflect the number of votes a party gets, although the proportionality is better than in the plurality system. This makes it unacceptable to most PR supporters and Churchill in 1931 called it, "the worst of all possible plans" (Hain 1986). AV shares the criticism of AMS that two classes of MPs would result, however, all MPs at Westminster should stay equal in status.
On reflection, all the electoral systems mentioned have their own problems and advantages it is, perhaps understandable that the government have opted for a referendum on this contentious issue. It seems that the controversy over is ongoing and those advocating change will not succumb to traditionalists' arguments as feelings run high, centring on the pursuit of democratic government. A referendum, promised by the government will be taken before a decision is made and it is unlikely that a new system will be implemented any time soon. It is vital that governments do not rush through a change of system. Once an electoral system is adopted it unlikely to be changed as once a party has been elected through a particular system they do not wish to change it. However, improvement in the fairness of the system must not be forfeited for fear of change. Each excels under different circumstances and what succeeds for one country may not for another. Deciding and agreeing which system is best for the UK is clearly problematic, if indeed any one system is best.
Bibliography
. Finer, S. E. (1975) Adversary Politics and Electoral Reform, Oxford, Anthony Wigram.
2. Hague, R. Harrop, M. Breslin, S. (1998) Comparative Government and Politics, An Introduction, 4th Edition, Hampshire, Macmillan Press Ltd.
3. Hain, P. (1986) Proportional Misrepresentation, Hants, Wildwood House.
4. Smyth, G (Ed). (1992) Refreshing the Parts - Electoral reform and British politics, London, Lawrence and Wishart.
5. Watt, N. 30/10/98, The Jenkins Report, The Guardian.
6. Article, 1991, Simple Majorities Pile Up Vote Mountains, The Guardian.
7.
8.
9.
0.
