Although from the statistics it can be seen that in the , the victorious Labour Party gained 43.2% of the total votes cast and won 63.6% of seats at Westminster. The combined number of votes for the Tory and Liberal Democrats represented 47.5% of the total votes (nearly 4% more than Labour) yet between them they got 32.1% of the seats available at Westminster.
In the , Labour got 43% of the total popular vote whereas all the other parties got 57% - yet Labour maintained its very powerful position in Parliament with 413 MP's out of 659.
It can be claimed that such a percentage of votes should not have given Labour such large Parliamentary majorities – but the workings of the FPTP system allows for just such an occurrence. Lord Hailsham once referred to this system as an "elective dictatorship" in that a powerful government can be created with overwhelming Parliamentary power which can usually push through its required legislation - but with only a minority of the country supporting it. At the 1997 national election, the Liberal Democrats gained 16.8% of the votes but only got 46 seats. Labour won 43.2% of the votes and gained 419 seats. Not only can the government be elected on less than half of the electorates votes but at a proportionate level, the Liberal Democrats should have got around 106 seats in Westminster if their representation was based on similar support for the Labour Party.
Proportional Representation (PR) as a title covers a wide variety of where seats in parliament are proportion to votes cast. PR systems have been used in different forms in elections for in , and Northern Ireland. A form of proportional representation was used in the London mayoral election as well
PR either through AMS or STV, is used throughout Europe and has long been advocated by the Liberal Democrats and support for it has grown in Britain since the 1970s. This is partly because the (FPTP) failed in the 1970's to produce strong majority governments, and partly because the increasing third-party vote since the mid-1970s has highlighted the distortions of the present voting system. If PR had been used at the , the huge Labour majority would have been suitably shrunk with the Liberal Democrats gaining - possibly from the 46 seats they achieved to as many as 106 MP's. They gained 16.8% of the total votes but much less than 10% of the total seats available at Westminster. PR would have changed their standing - and reduced the final Labour tally. A similar result would have been obtained in the result with the implication that is unfair and potentially undemocratic in that the number of votes cast for the government is disproportionate to its popularity with the British public.
Also the PR system offers more opportunities for independent candidates - only one (Martin Bell) won a constituency vote in the election and he lost his attempt to win another independent seat in 2001 using . An argument put forward against FPTP is that it might put people off of voting in an election for a minority party as they know that their vote will be wasted. The (which can sometimes been seen both positive and negative) is usually eliminated using PR and the end result is more ‘pluralist’. The possibility of single-party 'elective dictatorship' is greatly diminished although does not completely rule out the possibility as can be seen from the elections in Sweden using PR system.
The two main PR systems that I will analyse are AMS and STV. The STV system is in use in Australia (for the Senate), the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland (for European elections and also for elections to the new Northern Ireland Assembly) This system assumes that the country is divided into multi-member constituency and parties may put up as many candidates as there are seats available in that constituency. Voters are expected to vote for their choices in a ranking list of preferences. Voters can also vote for just two or three of the candidates on the ballot paper.
Any candidates who get the necessary quota of "first preference" votes are elected for that constituency. The quota ensures that there are not more winners than there are seats available for that constituency. If a candidate receives more first preference votes than are needed for the quota, the surplus votes are redistributed proportionately among the second preference choices of that candidate. If he/she has three second preference choices, then the surplus votes over and above the quota are divided by three and distributed in an equal three way split to those second preference candidates. This may well let other candidates reach the required quota thus boosting that party's representation when the final result for that constituency is released.
If those second choice candidates reach the required quota, any surplus votes they may have are re-distributed in the same manner. The person who gets the least amount of votes each time is eliminated and this process will continue until all the quota seats are filled.
AMS was used in the / parliament/assembly elections. It is used in the German and Italian general elections and is considered to be a a hybrid electoral system.It is a mixture of the system and the in which voters usually have two votes.The first vote is for a constituency member and the result of this is decided on a system. The second vote is for a party and some of the seats are awarded on a which can either be regional or national. Using this particular system small parties have a theoretical advantage as a result of the system but it rarely manifests itself in favour of the small parties. AMS does not usually produce governments with a decisive majority as can be seen from the Welsh Assemblies. Coalition governments can also be common but with AMS such governments are dominated by one party.
In conclusion, whether a Proportional Representation produces a more representative and effective Government depends on the individual definition of a representative and effective government. We have no one perfect system in order to compare these different electoral systems. Also it depends whose point of view this question is being analysed from. A member of the Liberal Democrats party may say that the FPTP system is restricting small parties whereas a Labour member may argue that strong governments are being produced through the system. PR system can overcome many defects of FPTP, for example it does not require a concentration of seats and is therefore more democratic and truly represents the will of the people.
