First Past The Post (FPTP) Flashcards
what is FPTP?
First past the post is a non-proportional electoral system
It is the most common electoral system used in the UK today
The continued use of first past the post in general elections has led to decades of controversy
where is FPTP used?
UK general elections, usually every five years on the first Thursday in May according to the 2011 fixed term parliaments act
By-elections
Local council elections in England and Wales
how does FPTP work?
Voters cast a single vote by putting a cross next to their preferred candidate’s name
The candidate with the most votes wins and is elected as MP for that constituency
Does not need an absolute majority, all that is needed is plurality (simply the most votes, could be as little as one more vote than the next candidate)
Based on constituencies (650 in total) and each constituency votes for an MP to represent them in parliament — single-member representation
The candidate who is elected MP in each constituency wins a seat in parliament for their party
the party with the most seats, but not necessarily the most votes across the country, can form a government
most seats =/= most votes
advantages: SPEED AND SIMPLICITY
Very easy to use — voters simply put a cross in a box to choose one candidate
quick and simple process — the votes simply need to be counted, The result is usually found out the next morning and a new government is rapidly formed, allowing a swift and orderly transfer of power
For example, after the 2010 general election in Belgium it took almost 18 months to form a new government and they use a proportional system — Party leaders have to bargain and negotiate to determine the outcome of an election as the results tend not to be as straightforward as FPTP
First past the post tends to be far more decisive than such proportional systems
Although in 2010 negotiations between Conservatives and Lib Dems did not produce a result for five days — this would be the norm in a proportional system because the outcome of an election would be determined by bargaining between party leaders, which takes time
advantages: FAMILIARITY
First past the post is the most common used system in the UK
it is very easy to understand and the public does not seem to want to change it
In 2011 the public was given the chance to replace FPTP with AV but chose not to (almost 68% voted no)
advantages: STRONG AND STABLE GOVERNMENT
First past the post promotes a two party system which gives voters a clear choice and usually gives a clear majority to one party, making it much less likely to produce a coalition
Gives the party a clear mandate to carry out policies e.g. 1997 Labour government with their constitutional reforms
Coalitions means that policies will be negotiated behind closed doors without letting the public have a verdict
they are also sometimes unstable if the party leaders disagree and have to negotiate for a long time, they may break up — however the 2010 coalition lasted the full five years
However recent elections have demonstrated that first past the post does not always lead to a strong and stable government
For example in 2010 Conservatives had to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats because they were 20 Seats short of a majority
Similarly in 2017 the Conservatives were eight seats short of majority so made a more informal agreement with the DUP
advantages: EXCLUDES EXTREMIST PARTIES
Although FPTP tents to underrepresent smaller parties, this means that extremist parties that feed off racism xenophobia and discrimination are less likely to get a foothold or enough seats to have any real say in parliament
prevents extremist parties getting into power
For example UKIP in the UK or AfD in Germany
advantages: STRONG LINK BETWEEN MPs AND THEIR CONSTITUENCIES
First past the post leads to strong links between MPs and their constituencies because a single MP is responsible for representing one small size constituency, which results in a strong link between them
For example through holding surgeries (Stephen Timms MP)
The constituents trust their MP to represent them
disadvantages: DISTORTS VOTERS WISHES
First past the post is nonproportional and so distorts voters wishes
In 1951 and 1974 the party forming government had less votes than the main opposition party overall
The number of seats is not proportional to the number of votes won
disadvantages: MINORITY RULE
A party or MP can still come into power with less than 50% of the vote because an absolute majority is not needed, only plurality is required (the winning MP only needs one more vote to win)
a party or MP can also still come to power even if the majority of people voted for someone else
This is therefore unrepresentative of the country’s wishes and lacks legitimacy because the number of seats is not proportional to the number of votes
Most MPs do not command majority support within their constituency and when taking into account low voter turnout, they have even less support
For example in 2015 a SDP MP In Belfast won with only 24.5% of the vote, however turnout in Belfast was only 60% so he actually only won 14.7% of the overall support
In 2005 Labour under Tony Blair was reelected on only 35.2% of the vote, meaning that most people did not vote for him yet he still formed a government, which weakened his mandate and meant that labour lacked legitimacy
disadvantages: NON PROPORTIONAL
leads to disproportional outcomes
The number of votes overall does not in any way equal the number of seats awarded meaning that the system favours parties whose votes Are concentrated into specific areas and not spread out support
This means that it underrepresents small parties and does not accurately reflect the voters wishes
In 2015 UKIP won almost 3.9 million votes (12% of all votes), but only 1 seat in the House of Commons — if the system was proportional then they would’ve won 12% of the seats
Meanwhile the winning party enjoys a share of seats in excess to the amount of votes it receives
for example, The SNP won 56 out of 59 seats in Scotland with only 50% of the vote (not proportional) and therefore enjoyed a share of seats in excess to the votes it received, which is known as the winners bonus
In 2015, the Conservatives won 50.9% of seats but only 36.9% of the vote
disadvantages: LIMITED VOTER CHOICE
Promotes a two party system so only the two main parties have a real chance of winning and being able to form a government
this leads People to vote for them to ensure that their vote is not wasted on a smaller party that cannot hope to win — e.g. in 2015, around 83% of all votes went towards Labour or Conservative
Tactical voting — people don’t vote for their favourite candidate or party but for the candidate most likely to prevent the candidate or party they dislike from winning
essentially, voters may not vote for the candidate they genuinely want because the candidate is unlikely to win
this can depress voter turn out as people may feel that there is no point in voting for a candidate that cannot hope to be elected due to the existence of safe seats
there is also a lack of MP choice because the party only puts forward one candidate per constituency and this candidate might not represent everyone’s views within the party
there is no choice between different wings or factions of the party
Creates ‘electoral deserts’ which are areas where a certain party cannot get many votes, such as labour in many areas of South East England which are heartlands for the Conservatives — safe seats where the seat is unlikely to be won by anyone else
this may lead voters to vote a certain way to ensure that ever is not wasted on a losing candidate who has no hope of winning in that area — limits their choice
People may feel that they cannot vote for their preferred candidate because they are unlikely to win which can depress voter turn out and result in tactical voting
disadvantages: VOTES ARE OF UNEQUAL VALUE
A vote tends to count more in a small constituency than in a larger one
votes are also wasted if they are casted for a losing candidate because only one candidate can win within each constituency
In 2015, over 74% of votes were wasted according to the electoral reform Society
CASE STUDY: Stephen Timms
FPTP Case study Stephen Timms MP for labour
Had the greatest number of surgeries in 2011 which allowed him to be accessible to his constituents and maintain a strong link as he was frequently available to those seeking help and advice
Allows the electorate to get involved and engage in politics as they have clear links to government through a single person
strength of first past the post — strong link between MPs and their constituencies
why has FPTP survived for Westminster elections?
FPTP has survived because the outcomes it produces suits the interests of the two largest parties who have largely monopolised the government since 1945
It encourages a two party system and this benefits the two main parties because only they have any real chance of getting into power and forming governments
Gives labour and the Conservatives large majorities, so why would either want to change it, seeing as it benefits them?
They have no incentive to change it and since only they have any real prospect of forming a government it is unlikely to be changed
