Should We Keep FPTP? Flashcards
1A: strong government with seat majority can carry out manifesto
The 179 seat majority for Blair’s Labour in 1997 allowed them to pass essentially any legislation they wished. With New Labour’s dedication to modernising the UK, with third way economics and constitutional reform generating mass support, it is advantageous to be able to pass his manifesto promises with ease. For example, the HRA 1998 and creation of National Minimum Wage in 1999 were large reforms, 43% of votes would cause hung parliament where Labour forced to compromise even though people voted for manifesto
1B: minority rule
Since 1918 only 2 election (31 and 35) have resulted in above 50% voter share, this gives questions on the true legitimacy of the mandate given to winning parties. Should majorities as strong as Blair’s practically exempt from part rebellions have that much power? Is it then an elected dictatorships. Furthermore Salisbury Convention for manifesto pledges, but should they really be exempt from HOL scrutiny if more than 50% didn’t vote for it?
2A: excludes extremist parties
Many extremist parties, at least as classified by media, do not have a concentrated enough suoooet to win enough seats for a majority. Also this encourages ‘Big Tent’ policies that represent a large amount of the pooulation, Reform are largely a single issue party on immigration, which may give them support in places like the Red wall amongst the working class, it does not apply to rest of country who doesn’t find immigration as concerning as other issues. Although it is debatable whether ‘extremists’ should be ignored it arguably keeps politics in the relative centre, allowing the most amount of people to be represented as possible, even though Labour voters may not support CON, they would likely prefer their policies compared to Reform.
2B: political diversity is suppressed
The idea of an extremist party arguably prevents progress and is founded in conserving power amongst perhaps elitist circles. Although Reform is controversial should they be ignored? Pluralism is also reduced, PR would mean that reform voters would not have wasted their votes, their ideas would be shared in parliament with a fair voice.
In 2017, 11% of votes resulted in 2% seats, in 2019, 16%.
3A: MPs are held accountable
Due to MP’s representing their constituents, and not just the whole country, they can be held to account and their voting history etc easily monitored by their constituents.
For example, if an MP votes for a bill that is against the interest of their constituency, and this becomes common knowledge within the constituency they could be kicked out of next election. For example as of Aprile 2025, at least 80 Labour MP’s are at risk of losing next election due to welfare cuts
3B: wasted votes
74% wasted in 2024, not just symptom of Labour Majority, in 2019 72% and 2017 68%
This generates voter apathy were people feel as if it is pointless to vote as it doesn’t actually change the result, as there is not any realistic challenge, hence low voter turnout when obvious winner (59.2% 2001, 59.7% 2024)
This encourages people to vote for ‘lesser of 2 evils’ in tactical voting, 29% of Labour 2024 tactically voted against tories and 28% in total
Also 40% in total prepared to tactically vote to get rid of CON according to poll, democratic deficit
