Outline the problems of the First Past the Post system and consider whether the Alternative Vote would provide a fairer system.

Coursework

In most of the modern societies an electoral process is an important symbol of a democracy that represents a concept of freedom of choice and fairness. The UK Coalition Government is now facing a need of reforming the process by choosing between FPTP and AV systems. As final decision can affect the whole society, it is crucial to carefully analyze advantages and disadvantages of both systems.

FPTP allows a candidate to win by the majority of votes. It is a straightforward system that requires comparatively simplified procedures. In addition, it usually provides stable and strong one-party government. Also, elected party usually governs effectively and carries on the manifesto promises. Another advantage is a good-organized constituency link between MPs and their constituents. They can easily contact their MP to get support (Coxall et al. 2003, Jones and Norton 2010). Finally, FPTP tent to limit extremist parties like fascist, racist and other “hate” parties, for example British National Party.

However, there are several disadvantages that should be considered. The most important weakness and the major criticism of FPTP system is ‘wasted votes’ issue (Lowe et al. 2010, p.115). For instance, in 2005 the UK General Election 65% of overall votes was wasted (BBC news 2005). Each vote is significant as it affects final result. Moreover, wasted votes lead to depressed turnout. Fewer people are willing to vote as they think their votes are not counted or make no change because there is a constantly winning party called ‘Safe seat’. In the last election, for instance, many people wanted to vote for Liberal-Democrats party, ‘safe seats’ and wasted votes dissuaded them to do it (Lowe et al. 2010, Jones and Norton 2010, Pollwatch 2010). Another reason fewer people prefer to vote is that this system is quite disproportional that is viewed by voters as an unfair practice. For example, in 2005 The Labour party won with 35% of the votes and 356 seats, while Conservatives had 32% and 198 seats accordingly (BBC news 2005).

Another point is that depressed turnout and ‘save seats’ can make leading parties to benefit more than smaller ones. For instance, in 1997 FPTP discriminated against the Parliamentary power of Liberal Democrats (16.8% and 46 seats), while Conservatives (30.7% and 165 seats) and Labour (43.2% and 419 seats) benefited from it (Trueman 2006). The third party, Liberal-Democrats, is under-estimated in House of Commons because of geographically distributed votes. In the 2010 election Liberal-Democrats had 23 per cent of vote, but 9 per cent of the seats (BBC news 2005).

Disproportional system also leads to another issue. Although this system ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Disproportional system also leads to another issue. Although this system excludes extremist parties, it also limits small parties. For instance, Green party has only one MP. In a proportional system 1% of this party should equal 6 seats and UK Independent Party’s 3% should equal to 18 seats, but they actually have zero seats (Lowe et al. 2010, p.115). FPTP can also cause an “elective dictatorship” of one party. Ones a party get elected it has a power to dictate for five years. Furthermore, undeniable option calls - the power of dissolution that gives a right to the Prime Minister to ask The Queen for a general election when it is comfortable for his party – is a comparatively unfair advantage for the party with such a right (Lowe et al. 2010, p.108).

Alternative Vote (AV) system is quite different from First-past-the-post. In AV system candidates have to gain more than 50% to win, candidates with fewer votes are eliminated. As this system allows preference-based candidates numbering, where in case of first choice elimination, the next chosen party has extra votes. In this way people waste much fewer votes than in constituency election system, which is AV system’s advantage over FPTP. Moreover, this increases the turnout as more votes are counted and saved. AV provides third party with a chance not to be underestimated, but allocation of seats are still not perfectly proportional (Lowe et al. 2010, p.125-126, Pollwatch 2010, Coxall et al. 2003, Jones and Norton 2010).

It is also unlikely that AV could include extremist parties, but, as it is likely that second choices are considered, smaller parties can win.

No system is perfect, AV also has several weaknesses. Firstly, it requires more time and resources for counting the votes, elimination candidate, recounting and final result announcement. This process can be against traditional basis, as the public and government got used to quick release of information during FPTP work. Although both AV and FPTP provide clear choice, some voter may find it difficult to understand AV comparing to ‘single member plurality’ system (Lowe et al. 2010).

As a majoritarian system, AV can lead to “hung parliament”. Referring to the former example, in 2005 Labour would have won more seats in AV system, however if Liberal-Democrats would get about 20 or more seats so there would be another Coalition Government. In fact, UK hasn’t had a Coalition Government since 1945, so people have to get used to it. To compare with “Single member plurality” system (FPTP), when one common party passes their legislations through the government more easily, it can be harder for Coalition Government to provide a strong and stable government for a long time. The good thing of Coalition Parliament is that it is hardly to be elective dictatorship (Coxall et al. 2003, Jones and Norton 2010).

It is very important to consider other factors when deciding on which system is better. According to the research, the problem of wasted votes and disproportional allocation become more serious year by year (P. Whiteley 2010). The statistics shows that turn out in UK is increasing during 2001 - 2010 year coming to the level of 65.1%. In addition, elections require huge spending from the government and parties (UK political Info 2010a, 2010b, Jones and Norton 2010). As UK government is currently facing a need to cut the budget up to 40%, AV is not a useful method (Pollwatch 2010, J. Bingham 2010).

To sum up, AV system adoption is a quite controversial question. Although AV system is solving some problems of FPTP system and providing fairer conditions for candidates and electors, adoption of this system can be quite difficult for the UK Coalition Government in term of budget and time spent. In my opinion, it is better to retain current election system as careful analysis is required.

Bibliography:

Jones, B. and Norton, P. (2010), Politics UK seventh edition, Pearson, Essex, p.89-94

Coxall, B., Robins, L. and Leach, R. (2003), Conteprorary British Politics, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 4th edition

BBC News (2005), Full national scoreboard, available at , accessed at 10.12.12

Trueman, C. (2006), First Past the Post, historylearningsite.co.uk, available at: , accessed at 11/12/2010.

Lowe, C., Owen, V. et al. (2010), Politics, Pearson Custom Publishing, p.109,111-114,115

ECPRD (2010), Electoral Systems in Europe: An Overview, available at: , accessed at /11/12/10

Bingham, J. (2010), Government spending decisions put off until next election, Mandelson signals, available at , accessed at 10.12.12

Whiteley, P. (2010), Wasted Votes, The House magazine, available at , accessed at 10.12.12

Pollwatch (2010), Charter 2010, available at , accessed at 10.12.12

UK political Info (2010a), General election turnout 1945 – 2010, available at , accessed at 10.12.12

UK political Info (2010b), Election campaign spending by political parties, available at , accessed at 10.12.12

| Page

Peer Reviews

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

lordharvey

24th of Apr 2012

Quality of writing

The quality of this essay's writing is poor. The student makes reference to "AV system" or "FPTP system" when they should always say "the AV system" or "the FPTP system", because referring to two key concepts incorrectly suggests the student isn't knowledgeable about the subject. Furthermore, there are several spelling mistakes, such as "save seats" which should be "safe seats": this also suggests to the examiner that the student can't express key concepts themselves, so always proof read before finishing your essay.

Level of analysis

The student shows an excellent understanding of how the voting systems work, which shows they are knowledgeable and they have the capability to understand complex systems. Before revising the pros and cons of each, spend a couple of hours making sure you can explain the main voting systems - FPTP, AV, STV, PR, others taught in class - to show that you have that key knowledge. Some of the evidence used in this essay is good: for example, the student points out that "65%" of votes were wasted, showing that they understand that this is a high number. This is better than saying "lots of votes were wasted", as "lots" could mean anything: the statistic proves that the student has knowledge. However, the level of analysis could be improved: the student doesn't actually explain what "wasted" means, so they are not showing enough understanding. It would be better to say "...65% of votes were cast in safe seats where the outcome was almost certain, so the electorate's votes were wasted", as you are getting in an explanation rather than just words or evidence. The conclusion to the essay is good as it reaches a judgement, which shows that the student can look back over what they have written and assess it to find which interpretation they think is correct. It is especially good in an essay like this to come up with a strong conclusion, as it is an issue that was recently in the news - having an opinion would show you are knowledgeable and well-informed.

Response to question

The student answers the question very well. This is reflected in the essay's structure: they deal with FPTP in one section and AV in the next, but they subdivide both sections into pros and cons. This shows that they understand the need to think widely about every issue and consider both sides of the argument, and it also shows they can organise their knowledge in an essay. The student stays on task for the whole piece by always talking about voting systems, which is good as it shows they have enough knowledge to answer the set question.

Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn