The Pros And Cons Of First Past The Post

First Past The is a system where ’the winner takes it all’. First Past The Post means the votes of many hard working citizens are completely disregarded, as due to the system coming second in a constituency gets you no seats in parliament. In a nation which exclaims how democratic it is, how can we have such an unfair voting system? Is it fair to have a constant two party race? Is it acceptable to have a system that pushes out smaller parties? There is a clear alternative to First The Post which has been adapted into the Scottish Parliament elections which is Proportional Representation. A proportional system such as the Additional Members System stops votes being wasted. This creates a government which represents the people accurately and so it it clear there is no better way for elections to take place. We cannot allow anymore
‘elected dictatorships’ to happen in Britain.

It has been argued that the decline of voting turnout in recent UK elections, and of the movement for voters to support smaller parties such as The Green Party, is due to the fact that voters are unhappy with the unfairness of the British voting system during general elections. The voter turnout in the UK sits at around 30% which is extremely low in comparison to 70% in the recent Scottish Referendum, where every vote made a difference. The Institute of Public Policy Research showed that the 2010 General Election was decided in 108 constituencies by fewer than 450,000 voters which is just 1.8% of the electorate. How can it be justified to have a voting system where 98.2% of people eligible to vote make no difference to the outcome of the election? First Past The Post does not create a ‘government of the people, by the people’ one of the founding blocks of democracy. First Past The Post does not give smaller parties fair representation. As coming second in a constituency, even by 1%, would mean the party would not receive a seat in parliament. This means that it is difficult for new, growing parties to get a start in politics. First Past The Post is an outdated system designed for two party party politics. Britain is no longer a country where only the Conservatives and Labour Party are campaigning. The growth of the Liberal Democrats, Green Party and UKIP have highlighted the flaws in the current system. In a report published for the British Academy this month, LSE professor Simon Hix argues the problems of a multi-party system with a First Past The Post vote stating a party coming into power with less than 50% of the support of electorate is likely to be some difference to the left or to the right of the average voter.

Furthermore First Past The Post overemphasises the importance of marginal constituencies and removes influence of voters in safe seats. The majority of seats are seen as ‘safe seats’ where it is an almost guarantee which party will take the constituency and so not too much campaigning is done by other parties in these areas. Parties have to rely on concentrated support which is another problem affecting smaller parties. In 12 of the last 17 elections, 90% or more seats stayed with the party defending them. This means that if you voted The Green Party in a Labour safe seat your vote would have made no impact on the result of the elected constituency MP. Furthermore as a result of this if you are a Conservative voter in Scotland you have no representation as there is only one Conservative seat in the whole of Scotland. How can we emphasise the importance of democracy in other Third World countries when our own system is so flawed? Parties focus their time and their money on these few marginal seats. We cannot accept it is fair for a small amount of the electorate to have to casting vote in general elections nor is it acceptable for political parties to forgot about the voters in what are considered safe seats.

First Past The Post also encourages tactical voting more than Proportional Representation systems.
Firstly, some voters simply vote the party they believe will win even if they prefer another on the basis that they do not want their vote to be seen as ‘wasted’. Because of this media’s influence in voting grows as some voters will tend to believe the media's predictions as to who the leading contenders. Those candidates who receive the most media attention will probably be the most popular and thus most likely to be the top two. Moreover the system can also actively encourage votes against instead of for. For example entire campaigns have been embarked on trying to stop the Conservative Party winning seats. If the Conservatives hold a marginal seat, while Labour sit in second place, and Liberal Democrats in third. Voters of Liberal Democrats may vote Labour tactically as they would prefer the Labour Party as opposed to the Conservative Party. As a result of this we are voting for polices we do not agree with, a leader we do not like and ignoring who we truly want to vote for to work around the numerous problems of first past the
post.

Finally the biggest complication with First Past The Post is that the percentage of vote received by a party does not equal the amount of seats they win. This a particular problem for the Liberal Democrats who have wide and narrow support unlike Labour who both have extremely concentrated support. In the 2005 General Election the Liberal Democrats won 22% of the overall vote but only 9.6% of the seats while Labour won 55% of the seats with 35% of the overall vote. This means you as a Liberal Democrat voter are underrepresented in the House of Commons due to the fact the Liberal Democrats’ support is not deep in particular areas.

It is clear First Past The Post does not fit into British politics now. Proportional Representation has been widely accepted in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and has vastly increased voter turnout as the electorate can see their vote is not wasted. Every vote you make in a proportional system makes a difference. Additionally a new system would allow minority parties a better opportunity to enter parliament, helping to end the Conservative/Labour majority and giving representation to their supporters. Proportional Representation also results in more coalitions which would be good for democracy as more people would get some of what they want and no party without a majority could inflict drastic change. Compromise is good for democracy. Most importantly a system of Proportional Representation means that percentage of vote won by a party is similar to the percentage of seats they win, which is First Past The Post’s biggest flaw.