First-Past-the-Post

First-Past-the-Post

1. Background

   • Voters cast only one vote in single-member constituencies
   • The candidate who wins the most votes wins ad becomes the MP for the constituency
   • There are 650 constituencies in the UK
     • Each elected one MP
   • The party which wins over 325 of the constituencies has an overall majority and becomes the government

2. Advantages

   • It's simple
     • The candidate who gets the most votes wins - other systems are a confusing mess of preferences and probabilities
   • It's efficient
     • It's cheap to administer and comes with little bureaucracy
       • Other systems are more complex and come with additional costs explaining the system and counting the votes
   • It prevents extremist parties from winning seats in the House of Commons
   • Voters not politicians decide elections
   • It is part of British history
     • Two centuries ago, voting was limited to a privileged few, however, generations of campaigners fought to change that
   • It has created a political system that is essentially stable as politics is dominated by just two parties
   • In 2010, the Conservative manifesto declared - "We support the first-past-the-post system... because it gives voters a chance to kick out a government they are fed up with"
   • It usually provides a strong one-party government which is accountable to the electorate
     • Other electoral systems make coalitions more likely, and these are undemocratic
   • It means a parliament only breaks down every 9 months or so
     • Italy has had 60 governments since WWII, whereas Britain has had 8
   • Former Home Secretary, David Blunkett (Labour) - " 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it", is one of the oldest sayings in the book, and it has never been more apt than over these unnecessary plans to change the voting system."

3. Disadvantages

   • It is a politicians government
     • The people do not get a look in - compromises are reached which bear no relationship to what electors want
   • It over represents the winning party that gets more seats than it's support justifies
   • Many votes are wasted - a vote counts for nothing if a person doesn't vote for the 'winner' in their constituency
   • It perpetuates the two party system - in reality Britain is a multi-party state but this is not reflected in the House of Commons
   • It works to the advantage of some parties whose support is concentrated in certain areas but may be weaker in other parts of the country
   • Tactical voting is strong
     • Dr Stephen Fisher (Oxford Uni) - "It happens primarily when the third-party is quite far behind the top two, which tends to be the case in the marginal seats"
   • Safe seats are a massive issue
     • On average, seats last changed hands between parties in the 1960s
       • Some super safe seats have remained firmly in one-party control since Queen Victoria's reign
   • It creates a majority government with minority support
   • Lord Norton (Conservative peer and academic) - "The principle argument against the present system is that it is unfair - it is not a proportional system. However, proportional representation is a narrow concept. The ''proportionality' relates only to the relationship of votes to seatsand not to the proportionality of power."
   • Stops minority parties becoming king makers, thus taking power away from the electorate
   • It encourages 'broad church' centrist policies
   • Stuart Wilks-Hegg - "The electoral system radically empowers a small minority of voters by geographical accident - voters in marginal seats have a genuine choice of candidates with a realistic chance of winning, and exert much greater influence over the overall outcome of the election"
   • It severely restricts voter's choice
     • If the preferred-party candidate in your constituency has views that you don't agree with, you don't have a means of saying this at the ballot box