FPTP leads to a large number of wasted votes this is mainly because of the ‘safe seats’ where a political party traditionally gets a majority of the votes in a particular constituency for example the Labour party usually wins a majority in Bootle where in the 2010 general election Labour received 66% of the vote it is very unlikely for other political parties to win in another parties ‘safe seats’. This means that political parties do not try has hard to campaign and influence the constituencies vote as they are very likely to win a majority whether or not they campaign. Also conservative voters living in Bootle vote are meaningless and are therefore wasted so they might vote tactically to try and stop Labour from getting into power and they would vote for the 2nd or 3rd preference like the Liberal democrats as they are more likely to gain votes in Bootle. Also votes for the minor parties are also wasted as there are extremely unlikely to gain a majority in many constituencies so they also might do ‘tactical votes’. FPTP also weakens another function of an electoral system which is the voters should have a wide range of choice between political parties but as the UK is just a 2 and a half party system there is only a real choice between 2 and a half parties.
England is the only country in Europe to use FPTP electoral system in therefore it must not be the best choice however the UK has its own special needs for an electoral system. Minor parties not being represented may not be a disadvantage as extremist parties do not do well and small constituencies’ views are taken into account. Parties like BNP are not doing well under FPTP this is surly is not disadvantage of FPTP. Elections in the European parliament show that using the proportional ‘closed’ regional list system parties such as the Green Party and the UK Independent Party have managed to get MEP’s.
FPTP although it is not proportional it is very simple and straight forward it would create much less spoilt ballots then a Proportional system or Majoritarain system in Scotland 2007 which uses AMS to elect MSP’s had thousands of spoilt ballots this shows that it confuses the electorates and therefore undermines the governments legitimacy as the citizens did not understand the voting system. The simplicity and the familiarity of FPTP is very good argument to keep the current electoral system. It is also clear to see who has won in the elections straight away it would not take several days like the STV proportional system that is used in Northern Ireland. However it could be argued that we should wait a couple of days to get a fairer vote.
Furthermore First Past the Post broadly represents public opinion if a political party not popular they would not win for example in 1997 the country wanted a change from conservatives and Labour’s Tony Blair came into power. One of the main advantages of the current electoral system for the general election (FPTP) is that it provides a strong, stable, single party government with the exception of may 2010 when a coalition between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats occurred meaning no one had a majority of constituencies therefore it may be argued that the current government does not got a mandate to fulfil their policies this would occur more under other electoral systems therefore FPTP is the good for single party governments.
However it could be argued that single party governments dent democracy because it gives one political party too much power and coalitions encourage consensus in government as parties have to negotiate FPTP also ensures that political parties are accountable during the reign in government. Additionally coalitions give a balance in policies and ideologies. FPTP also helps maintain political party’s geographical stronghold. FPTP also helps maintain an adversarial politics by encouraging single party government.
FPTP also supplies each constituency with their own member of parliament so close relationship between representative and their constituencies can take place other. Many politicians believe that constituency representation is one of the key strengths as the system links the voter with the representative other electoral system do not provide this for example the list system affect constituency representations voters choose a party not a candidate so there is no direct connection between the voter and the elected representatives.
In conclusion I believe that there is no need for there to be an electoral reform although FPTP does not fulfil all electoral system functions there is no electoral system that does however FPTP is the best system for fulfilling what I believe is the most important functions of electoral system. As it is simple hold government to account, there is constituency representation it also shows clearly the most popular party. And alternative voting systems would cause much more of a concern.
