Evaluate the view that FPTP should be replaced with a more proportional system? Flashcards
LoA
no, it should not be replaced
what is the theme for para one
strong and stable gov
what is the theme for para two
MP-constituency link
what is the theme for para three
simplicity and ease
para one - strong and stable gov
- It creates stability and strong governments, able to make coherent decisions, yet retaining the flexibility necessary to adapt to changing circumstances. Boris Johnsons conservative gov won 365 seats. This is in comparison to more proportional systems like STV, which create multi party coalitions which are unable to get anything done (like in Ireland). Since 1979, there have only been two times no party has achieved a majority in parliament, showing the true strength of the system.
It keeps out small, extremist parties by discriminating against them. Groups like the British Fascist Party and the British Communist Party may have had more of a chance of becoming powerful with a more proportional system, like in Germany where the NAZI party was able to grow
para one - however
- FPTP discriminates in favour of the two main parties, particularly those with concentrated support, so government is unrepresentative. For example, in 2019 the conservatives got 43% of the vote but 56% of the seats and in 2010 they got 36.8% of the vote and 50.8% of the seats. In comparison, in 2015 the LibDems got 7.9% of the vote but 1.2% of the seats. UKIP and the Green party have also suffered at the hands of FPTP
Systems like AMS could more evenly balance this, giving representatives to parties who were discriminated against in the FPTP voting.
para one - rebuttal
The system still creates a fair result, the party with the most votes will almost always win. There have only been five occasions in the last 120 years where a party lost the popular vote, but won the most seats, with the last time being in February 1974. Furthermore, only twice (1951 and 1874) has the winner of a majority lost the popular vote
para two - MP-Constituency link
- MPs have a close relationship with constituents; they meet them regularly at ‘surgeries’’, represent their concerns in Parliament and deal with their grievances. For example, Sarah Champion has brought forward attempts at changes to legislation around first time offences of paedophilia, due to events in her constituency of Rotherham.
- Furthermore, it ensures that the candidate who most people prefer wins the seat, as the person with the most votes will always win the seat.
para two - however
- Other systems also offer constituency’s good local members to represent them. Systems like the STV and AMS provide a strong MP -Constituency link whilst being more proportionate and fair than FPTP.
Most MPs do not achieve 50 per cent of the votes in their constituency, so they are not representative of their constituency. Jonathon Djanogly only got 32.8% of the votes in the constituency of Huntingdon
para two - rebuttal
Systems like STV and AMS are flawed. AMS has both directly elected members and representatives, and constituents can become confused about which one to go to and which one will represent them better, so it may tarnish links between MPs and constituents. It may create animosity between these two types of representatives (directly elected vs elected through the backdoor). Furthermore, STV has multi members constituencies, which means that lines of accountability for reps is unclear.
para three - simplicity and ease
- It is simply and easy to operate. All that is required is an ‘X’ in the desired voter choice. Other systems like SV and STV are much more complicated and can confuse voters, with STV sometimes leading to donkey voting (voting in the order of the ballot)
It is quick to produce a result. For example, Newcastle Central was the first constituency to declare a result in 2017 at 11 pm, only 60 minutes after the polls closed. This is in comparison to STV in N Ireland where it may take weeks for the results to come out.
para three - however
- Although the system may not create voter disparity or fatigue, the fact that votes are often wasted on losing candidates or on huge majorities in safe seats means that not everybody’s vote is worth the same, and this may in itself create a disparity among voters. In a system like SV, voters don’t feel like they have to vote tactically as they can vote for their first choice candidate without the fear of wasting their vote.
- Electronic voting today means the ease and speed of operation of FPTP is overrated. This may suggest that one of FPTP’s key benefits may be negligible, which may suggest replacing it with a more proportional system would be suitable.
para three - rebuttal
- The more proportional systems are incredibly complicated, and so although they may not waste individuals votes, it can confuse them and it may take a long time for a result to emerge
Furthermore, issues with electronic voting like hacking and external interference means that its implementation has been somewhat limited, as people are still sceptical about its uses.
what has shown there is no appetite for a different electoral system
2011 referendum to change FPTP to AV only had a turnout of 42%, with 67% voting to keep fptp.
