advantages/disadvantages of FPTP

Question 1

avoids undemocratic coalitions

Answer 1

-proportional systems produce undemocratic coalitions, FPTP avoids this
-coalitions can involve ‘horse trading’ of manifesto promises and give the ‘junior coalition partner’ disproportionate power
-e.g. 2021 Scottish Parliament elections, SNP formed coalition with Greens (6.2% of seats) allowing them to hold the balance of power
-in post war british politics, only example of a coalition was 2010-15 and was a straight forward two party one

Question 2

coalitions evaluation

Answer 2

-to liberals like the ERS, coalitions are democratic,the Electoral Reform Society suggests that by building a coalition with over 50% of the electorate’s choices, the executive branch is, inclusive of a wider range of political view points
-an example of the ‘democratic deficit’ FPTP
creates is the current Conservative government: it governs with an 80-seat majority on 43.6% of the vote. In essence, a minority right-wing view
point has a monopoly on power.

Question 3

disproportionality is undemocratic

Answer 3

-elections are measurements of the general will of the people, FPTP delivers insufficiently on this as it is 650 individual contests around the country
-often highly disproportionate, prof. john curtice ‘lottery elections’
-leads to over representation (tories 2019), underrepresentation (greens 2019) or no representation (Brexit Party,won 2% of vote but no seats)

Question 4

disproportionality evaluation

Answer 4

-to proponents of FPTP, disproportionality is seen as a necessary trade off to provide strong government. -FPTP tends to give power to a ‘catch-all’ parties that appeals to the largest part of the electorate.
-Proponents of FPTP argue that the alternative – under a PR system – is political instability or gridlock such as in Italy (21 governments in just over 30 years).

Question 5

majority governments on minority mandates

Answer 5

-due to small ‘c’ nature of constitution,government given leviathan power to make radical reforms without majority consent
-UK system turns prime ministers into ‘elective dictators’ e.g. Blair 1997 43.2% of vote but 179 seat majority

Question 6

majority on minority evaluation

Answer 6

-demanding that the executive branch achieves a mandate of over 50% of the people usually means that a coalition is required.
-As noted previously, coalitions are often highly undemocratic as party elites determine which parts of their manifestos to trade away (known as ‘horse
trading’ of policies).
-Strong, executive power is a hallmark of the British political system, and for proponents of FPTP, a degree of over-representation and under-representation is a price worth paying.

Question 7

safe seats and wasted votes

Answer 7

-votes are wasted in two ways under FPTP,surplus for the winner and other candidates as only a plurality is needed
-ERS estimates 70% of votes cast in 2019 were wasted
-safe seats encourage voter apathy and complacency among MPs, which then encourages voter abstention,loss of faith in democracy,and growth in populism

Question 8

safe seats and wasted votes evaluation

Answer 8

-Some ‘safe seats’ are no longer ‘safe seats’. Leigh, a constituency in Greater Manchester, was deemed a ‘safe seat’ for around a century but with the right policies, parties can offer a degree of social representation that ensures a real contest within the constituency. The Conservatives
won Leigh in 2019 by formulating policies that appealed to ‘Red Wall’ voters.