Sociology
All
Government
AS
A2
Government
Sociology
Home Sociology
and Politics Government Government and Politics
Links
Page
Modules
Home page and Politics and Politics
Links
Page last edited: 12/02/2016
Comparing First Past the Post and Proportional
Electoral Systems
Click here for BBC on alternative electoral systems and here for proposals for
referendum on voting systems
Click here for Guardian coverage of estimates of outcomes of the 2010 General Election
under alternative electoral systems
Click here for the Electoral Reform Society Home Page and here for “PR Myths and
here for information on AV and here for guides to different types of electoral system
from the Electoral Reform Society which, of course, campaigns for the reform of the
existing First Past the Post electoral system.
Click here for a neat graphic explanation of the mechanics of FPTP, AV, AV+
and STV from the Guardian.
Click here for detailed BBC coverage of the AV Referendum
Click here for brief explanations of alternative electoral systems from the
Electoral Commission
Click here for brief Guardian explanation of strengths and weaknesses of
alternative electoral systems
New Links on the implications of the 2015 General Election for the
Electoral reform debate have been added below. [June 2015]
The UK First Past the Post Electoral System: Arguments used in
favour
Elections have several functions: in particular it might be argued that they
are more about choosing a government than about ensuring absolutely fair
representation.
Under FPTP electoral systems single party stable governments with
sufficient House of Commons majorities have usually been elected although
there have been exceptions, for example in 1964-66, in 1974-79 and most
especially in 2010 when the General Election resulted in a Hung Parliament
and the formation of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition. However
in countries using PR general elections more often result in Hung
Parliaments and Coalition Governments which may be unstable resulting in
frequent changes of government.
Click here for UK General Election results 1945-2005
Click here for the UK General Election Result of 2010
Following general elections in the UK single party majority governments are
quickly formed. In countries using PR it may take several weeks before a
governing coalition can be formed and even then it may not last long.
Particularly in crisis situations single party majority government elected via
FPTP can take decisive action more quickly. Conservative opponents of PR
might argue that a coalition government would have been unable to take
decisive action in response to the Argentinean invasion of the Falklands.
However this assumes that decisive action is the right action. We had
coalition government in the 2nd World War and what about Iraq?
It is argued that general elections held under the FPTP system result in the
election of single party majority governments which can be held responsible
and accountable for their policies at subsequent general elections. However,
under PR each party in a coalition government may seek to take the credit
for successes and to blame failures on the coalition partner. In this way the
responsibility and accountability of the government as a whole is
undermined.
Under FPTP smaller parties secure limited or zero representation in
Parliament and there is usually single party majority government. Under PR
there may be a coalition which increases the powers of a small party while
excluding a large party from power.
FPTP makes the election of “extremist” parties such as fascist parties very
unlikely whereas PR makes it more likely. It is undesirable to do anything
that aids the election of fascist parties.
FPTP is easy to understand: voters can see easily how their vote affects the
outcome of the general election. If enough people vote Conservative they
will form a government. However under PR there may be a Cons-Lib
coalition which many Conservative voters did not necessarily want. Also
voters may disapprove of the terms of the coalition which will be determined
after the general election.
Under FPTP constituencies are relatively small and there is one MP per
constituency. This means that almost everyone will know who “their“ MP is
and can easily contact him/her when the need arises. However supporters of
PR dispute this view of the MP –constituency link as we shall see in the next
section.
It is argued that the presence of a strong MP-constituency link will help to
protect rebel or dissident MPs who come under pressure from the party
whips: e.g. Tory MPs who rebelled against the Maatstricht Treaty of Labour
MPs who rebelled against the Iraq war.
Under Pr there will be larger multi-member constituencies: e.g. Norfolk
could be one constituency returning 7 MPs rather than the current situation
where there are two Norwich constituencies, a Yarmouth constituency and at
present 4 individual Norfolk constituencies.[North Norfolk, North-West
Norfolk, South Norfolk, South-West Norfolk]
Under FPTP it is relatively easy to vote out an unpopular MP. However
some forms of PR are based on the party list system which means that an
unpopular MP may be voted out of a constituency but nevertheless retains a
seat because s/he is high up on the Party list.
Proportional Representation: Arguments used in favour
It is fairer. There is a much closer relationship between the % of votes
gained in general elections and % of seats won in the House of Commons.
This has clearly not been the case under FPTP especially from the 1970s
onwards. Under FPTP there have been occasions when the party securing
most General election votes lost the election. When?
Percentages of UK Votes Cast and Commons Seats Gained 1997-2015
Cons
Vot
e%
199
7
Sea
t%
199
7
Vot
e%
200
1
Sea
t%
200
1
Vote
%
2005
Sea
t%
200
5
Vot
e%
201
0
Sea
t%
201
0
Vote
%
2015
Seat
%
201
5
30.
7
25.
0
31.
7
25.
2
32.3
30.
5
36.
1
47.
0
36.9
50.9
Sea
t
No
201
5
331
Seat
Chan
ge
20102015
+24
Lab
LibDe
m
UKIP
Green
s
SNP
43.
4
16.
8
63.
4
7.0
40.
7
18.
3
PC
62.
7
7.9
35.2
22.0
55.
1
9.6
29.
0
23.
0
39.
8
8.8
30.4
33.7
232
-26
7.9
1.2
8
-49
12.6
3.8
0.2
0.
2
8.
6
0.
5
1
1
+1
0
56
+50
3
0
4.7
0.6
Additions June 2015
It is very important to note that the in the 2015 General Election the
relationships between the percentages of the votes cast and the perecentages
of seats gained by the political parties were particularly disproportionate.
Notice for example that the percentages of votes and seats won by UKIP, the
Greens and the SNP have a significant bearing on the debate around
Electoral Reform.
Click here for a recent Electoral Reform Society pamphlet illustrating
these disproportionalities [and for votes for Northern Irish parties not
included in above table]
Click here for BBC coverage of the Electoral Reform Society
pamphlet
Click here for an Observer article by Andrew Rawnsley on this issue
Under FPTP many Mps are elected to Parliament with less than 50% of the
actual vote and far less than 50% of the potential vote. This may appear to
be unfair and may undermine their legitimacy. Explain legitimacy.
Individuals are less likely to feel that their votes are being wasted. Under
FPTP individuals voting Liberal democrat in most seats and individuals
voting Labour in safe Conservative seats and Conservative in safe Labour
seats may all feel that their votes are wasted Under PR their votes can be
made to count. How?
It is claimed that the FPTP electoral system is a major cause of low electoral
turnout but it is not the only cause. What other causes exist?
Under PR there would be no need for negative tactical voting. You could
vote positively for your preferred party knowing that your vote would count.
FPTP may result in the existence of electoral deserts: e.g. in 1983 Labour
gained very few Southern seats outside London and the Conservatives since
1997 have gained very few seats in the large Northern cities, Wales and
Scotland. This needs some further explanation.
Supporters of PR argue that the existence of multi-member constituencies
means that voters have more choice in that they can vote within parties as
well as between them. For example; they can choose between more and less
radical Labour candidates as well as between Labour and Conservative
candidates. Also the existence of multi-member constituencies means that a
constituent can contact a representative from his/her preferred party whereas
in single member constituencies the representative will obviously be a
representative of one party only.
Under FPTP the result of the general election is decided by the results in a
relatively small number of marginal constituencies which may change hands
and the parties spend lots of time and money trying to win these marginal
seats. Meanwhile they may spend little time considering the views of voters
living in safe seats because the results in these seats are a foregone
conclusion.
It is desirable that minor parties are not discriminated against as they are
under FPTP.
 The Liberal Democrats are a significant national party with credible
ideas across the whole spectrum of politics.
 The Greens articulate vital environmental concerns
 UKIP could challenge the unaccountability of the European
Commission
 Fascist parties should be given the freedom to demonstrate how
ludicrous their ideas are…on the basis that good ideas will drive out
bad?
It was argued especially in the 1980s that the UK political system was
weakened as a result of the growth of adversarial politics: labour had moved
Left and the Conservatives had moved Right. There was argument for
argument’s sake rather than attempts to seek agreement and the likelihood of
damaging policy reversals if there was a change of government. PR would
lead to coalition government which would bring both parties toward the
centre ground in order to gain Liberal Democrat support in a coalition.
Adversarial politics would be much reduced.
However the electoral system is not the only factor making for adversarial
politics; its extent may have overstated and its impact on the economy may
have been limited .All of this needs further discussion.
PR reduces the likelihood of One Party dominance of government
[sometimes described as Elective Dictatorship]. With PR Mrs Thatcher may
have been unable to implement the Thatcherite agenda. Would Tony Blair
have been unable to take us to war in Iraq? On this view coalition
government is not weak government but preferable to Elective Dictatorship.
It appears that PR generates greater social diversity among MPs…this tends
to result in greater representation by women and ethnic minority members.
For example the representation of women is especially high in Sweden,
Denmark and Finland [all PR] and especially low in Canada, UK, USA [all
FPTP]. However the representation of women is also especially low in
Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic both of which have PR so cultural
issues are also involved.
.