Introduction to Politics for Economists – Essay (N0089998)
Question 3):
"First-past-the-post should be replaced as a method of electing political representatives." Discuss.
__________________________________________________________________
Answer:
The electoral system is based on the "First-Past-The-Post" (FPTP) system. This system is also used in the USA, Canada, and India. It is a system in which the 'winner takes all' and usually gives a clear majority both at constituency and national level. This means that a candidate in a constituency only needs one more vote than the nearest rival to win the seat. Usually this has the effect of turning the largest single minority of votes cast in the nation into a clear majority of seats in the House of Commons for the largest single party, so in theory a candidate could be elected with only 2 votes if every other candidate only secured a single vote.
In this way the system has benefited the two leading parties and discriminated against the political fortunes of all other parties, unless their votes are geographically concentrated in a particular part of the country. This pattern of discriminating has been discernable for years in the British electoral system. R. Rodgers and R. Walters refer to FPTP method as: “In this system there are no prizes for coming second; and it also means that the proportions of MPs of each party are not the same as the parties’ shares of the votes cast across the nation as a whole.”(How Parliament Works, 2004 p.24)
Some of the advantages of using FPTP as a method of electing political representatives are; there is very little chance of drastic parties being elected to Parliament under FPTP because they are unlikely to gain enough votes in any one constituency. Generally the results of elections using FPTP can be calculated quickly. When necessary, this makes the transfer of power from one party to another much easier. The 1997 and 2001 elections were clear evidence of this. It gives rise to a consistent parliamentary opposition. In theory, the flip side of a strong single-party government is that the opposition is also given enough seats to perform a critical checking role, and present itself as a realistic alternative to the government of the day. It gives a chance for popular independent candidates to be elected. This is particularly important in developing party systems, where politics revolves more around extended family ties, clan, or kinship, and is not based on strong party-political organizations. It maintains the link between constituents and their Member of Parliament (MP). Perhaps the most often quoted advantage of FPTP systems is that they give rise to a parliament of geographical representatives: MPs represent defined areas of cities, towns, or regions rather than just party labels. Many proponents of FPTP argue that true representative accountability depends upon the voters of one area knowing who their own representative is, and having the ability to re-elect, or throw them out, at election time. Some analysts have argued that this "geographic accountability" is particularly important in agrarian societies and developing countries.
This is a preview of the whole essay
Peer Reviews
Here's what a star student thought of this essay
Quality of writing
Quality of Writing The candidate's quality of written communication is very good; they are able to clearly communicate their ideas and explain their points well. There are a few minor errors, such as failing to capitalise "liberal democrats" in one instance (although this appears to be a typo), but none of them are grave enough to warrant a serious loss of marks. The candidate also writes that "there is very little chance of drastic parties being elected" and while it is obvious what the candidate means from the context, I would use "extreme" or "extremist" instead, as it is a more accepted term. There is also a reference to the Conservatives as "Tories" and personally I would stick to referring to them as "the Conservative Party" or "Conservatives". It may be tiresome having to repeat yourself so much, but I believe it is better to stick to correct political terms, even though Tory is a very well known label for the Conservatives.
Level of analysis
Level of Analysis The candidate's level of analysis is excellent. The essay goes into a lot of detail and examines the arguments for and against the use of FPTP to an appropriate level. The use of lots of examples from British politics is impressive. It shows that the candidate has a very good knowledge of the subject, and that they have done research/further reading on the topic, and the references to global politics demonstrate a wide range of research and knowledge.
Response to question
Response to Question The candidate gives an extensive, well developed response to the question. They concisely explain first-past-the-post, and then go on to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of FPTP in an admirable level of detail. This structure enables the candidate to show the examiner that they understand FPTP, and allows them to introduce the debate before examining it in more detail. The essay has a somewhat pro-FPTP slant, but this enables the candidate to come down on one side of the debate, and the candidate clearly sets out many of the disadvantages of FPTP, so it isn't really a problem.
