In the case for PR, the FPTP system distorts the results of the election. Generally it exaggerates the performance of the two major parties (Labour and Conservatives), twisting the results, so a majority government is reached. For example in the 1983 general election, the Liberal Democrats received 25.4% of the total votes cast and received only 23 seats, whereas Labour only received 2.2% more votes but got 209 seats in parliament. That’s over nine times the amount of seats for only 2% more of the total vote. Majoritarian systems under represent smaller parties particularly the Liberal Democrats who are discriminated against under the FPTP system. The votes to seats correlation is extremely distorted favouring Labour and the Conservatives.
Others would argue that if PR was used and there was a strong correlation between votes and seats a majority government would never be formed. This would cause coalition governments which are generally not as strong and decisive as majority governments which Britain has generally had. A decisive government is the most important attribute to a government as it can make decisions for the nation without having complications of a coalition government or a weak majority. Disagreements arise in coalition or minority governments making it extremely difficult to govern the country. FPTP normally gives a strong and stable government unlike in Israel where the Party List system in used and has formed a weak and unstable government which is unsuccessful in combating the intense difficulties in the country as the coalition formed from a PR system is volatile.
Those in favour of PR would argue that PR would remove ‘safe’ seats with their characteristic of low-turnout. If each vote counts, people would feel more inclined to involve themselves in elections.
Whereas those in favour of keeping FPTP would respond by saying that PR systems are much more complex than FPTP and people would not understand them increasing levels of apathy even further. The levels of apathy are not connected to the system used; it is just the levels of people uninterested in politics.
In favour of PR, minority parties, independents and the Liberal Democrats would end up with fairer representation, if a PR system was used in the 1997 general election the Liberal Democrats could have gained a possible 106 seats instead of what they actually gained of 46 under FPTP. In support of FPTP, with PR extremists could gain large amounts of power and could cause numerous problems. Small parties can also gain power and form coalition governments. For example in Germany, the tiny Liberals (FDP) have switched from supporting the Socialists (SPD) to the Conservatives (CDU) and thereby changed the party in power without even the formality of an election.
It is unfair in FPTP that a government can be formed from a minority of votes but still win a majority of the seats. Even in the 1997 Labour ‘landslide’ they only received 44.5% of the total vote, and with the low turnout of 71.4%, only, Labour were only supported by one in three of the people registered to vote. This poses the question; do they have the mandate to govern the nation with this lack of support? The mandate theory comes into question with the FPTP system and especially when it is combined with the declining levels of turnout in general elections. The government do not have the authority to put into effect the policies in their manifesto. It is an elective dictatorship. The government can push through unpopular legislation even though they didn’t gain a majority of the vote, but because they gained a large majority of the seats in parliament legislation like the poll tax can be pushed through parliament even though it is unpopular with the public.
Those against electoral reform would argue that if PR was used it would produce unstable coalition governments again without a mandate to govern due to them being coalitions. A compromise would have to be placed causing difficulties in making anything happen.
Supporters of PR systems have many different systems that could be put into place. AMS (Additional member system) retains the single member constituency leaving an MP accountable for its constituency. It’s modern as voters vote for a party and not a candidate and a threshold of 5% ensures that extremists are still excluded from parliament. It produces a strong coalition government such as the one in Germany.
Opponents would argue that AMS leaves half of MPs unaccountable to voters, and create two different types of MP, it never produces a single party government making it less likely to produce a stable and strong government.
Another system is STV (Single Transferable Vote) which uses preferential voting and produces a result which closely reflects the distribution of votes, which is a better reflection of the voter’s wishes. It gives voters a meaningful vote and ensures an MP constituency link in still retained, and gives an MP who will represent the individual’s views.
Weaknesses of the system are that it will again produce a coalition government which could be weak, indecisive and divided. The coalition that forms normally bears no relation to the individual parties most voters support. It is a complex system which could confuse voters and take several days to calculate, and finally the large, multi-member constituencies erode the clear and direct link between voter and their MP in single-member constituencies.
The final main system is the party list system, strengths of this system are that it is very easy for voters to understand, is very proportional creating an exact proportion between votes and seats. Smaller parties benefit as all votes are of equal value, and there is no need for by-elections.
Those in favour of maintaining FPTP would argue that the Party List system has many weaknesses such as because the lists are made up by the parties there is less choice than with FPTP. Most powers are placed in the hands of the party and not with the voter causing a more passive and less independent-minded party. There is also no direct link between voters and an MP, and has formed a particularly weak government in Israel.
PR also gives a more socially representative government, including more women and ethnic minorities a greater chance to be elected, due to preferential voting, whereas in FPTP white men form the majority of Parliament. With PR voters also have a greater choice of candidates and it is possible that those candidates may be of better quality and represent their constituents in a more profession manner. It also discourages tactical voting which has become one of the characteristics under FPTP.
FPTP ensures that a stable government is in power and the nation can be represented by a government that the most people voted for. Democracy should be principally about accountability of individual politicians and governments to the people, not about mathematical exactness.
On the other hand PR gives ever vote an equal value making sure that the country is not run by an elective dictator and that people get a government who has the legitimacy to run the country not one who has a minority of public support.