FPTP scrapped + replaced with PR Flashcards
(7 cards)
Debate themes
- Representation and proportionality
- Voter choice
- Type of govt created
For: Representation and proportionality
FPTP is a plurality system, often electing MPs without majority support, weakening their mandate and legitimacy.
2024 example: Labour’s Terry Jermy elected in South West Norfolk with just 26.7% of the vote — only 15.7% of the population if non-voters are included.
FPTP produces a lack of proportionality at the national level - votes don’t translate into seats accurately.
Winner’s bonus effect:
Parties with a plurality of votes often win a disproportionately high number of seats, especially in marginal constituencies.
2024 election: Labour won 63% of seats with only 33.7% of the vote.
In 2019, Labour got 32.1% of the vote but only 202 seats — stark contrast shows system distortion.
Minor parties are severely under-represented unless their support is geographically concentrated.
2024: Reform UK won 14.3% of the vote but only 5 seats (0.8%).
More proportional systems would give fairer outcomes:
AMS model (2024): Reform UK would have received 91 seats.
STV model (2024): Reform UK would have received 71 seats.
2019: Lib Dems got 11.5% of the vote but just 11 seats (1.7%).
2024: Lib Dems improved slightly with 12.2% of vote and 72 seats, still under proportionality.
2019 proportional projection: Lib Dems would have received 75 seats based on their vote share.
Against: Representation and proportionality
FPTP provides a strong MP-constituency link:
Each MP represents a small constituency, which ensures local interests are effectively represented.
MPs are directly accountable to their constituents, and their role is focused on local issues.
MP workload reflects this link:
MPs handle 300-500 emails per week and spend 40% of their time on constituency matters.
MPs hold regular surgeries to meet constituents’ needs and manage casework.
Rebel MPs show local representation under FPTP:
22 Conservative MPs (Dec 2023) rebelled to support a Labour amendment on the infected blood scandal, driven by local movements.
Example: Caroline Nokes, MP for Romsey and Southampton North, rebelled to represent a local demand for greater compensation.
For: voter choice
FPTP restricts voter choice:
Voters get only one vote, limiting their ability to fully express political preferences.
Contrasts with AMS, where voters have two votes — one for a party and one for a constituency member, allowing split-ticket voting.
Tactical Voting:
Tactical voting is a common strategy under FPTP: Voters may vote for a party not their first choice to prevent their least preferred party from winning.
MAKEVOTESMATTER - 1/5 voters in 2024 intended to vote tactically, with 58% of voters electing an MP they didn’t vote for.
Tactical voting undermines the legitimacy of the election result and shows a disconnect between voter preference and the outcome.
Proportional systems like STV:
Voters rank preferences, eliminating the need for tactical voting.
Unequal Value of Votes:
Votes in smaller constituencies count more than in larger ones, creating an inequality in voting power.
Safe seats:
Voters in safe seats often feel their vote is “wasted” as their preferred candidate is unlikely to win - Leads to depressed turnout in these constituencies, and less attention from political parties.
Example: Manchester Rusholme (2024), Labour won with 51.9% of the vote, yet turnout was only 40%.
Marginal seats:
Voters in marginal constituencies see their vote as more valuable and are more likely to turn out.
Parties focus heavily on marginal seats, leading to unequal campaign efforts.
Example: Thanet South, Kent, is an extremely important marginal seat frequently targeted by political campaigns.
Against: voter choice
Simplicity and Ease of Use:
FPTP is easy for voters:
Voters only need to select one candidate or party, making it straightforward and accessible.
Quick and clear results:
Election results are typically known early, which promotes a smooth transition of power.
Example: In the 2024 General Election, the result in Sunderland South was announced at 23:15, and by the early hours of the next morning, the result was clear. Keir Starmer arrived at Downing Street at 12:40 pm the next day, illustrating a swift transfer of power.
Public Support for FPTP:
Familiarity drives public support:
FPTP’s simplicity and familiarity help maintain public trust and support for the system.
Example: The 2011 Alternative Vote (AV) referendum saw 68% of voters rejecting the change, highlighting a preference for the current, familiar system.
Potential Issues with Other Electoral Systems:
Complexity of other systems:
More complicated electoral systems (such as AMS, STV) may confuse voters and lead to issues like ‘donkey voting’.
Example: In the 2019 local elections in Northern Ireland, in District Electoral Areas, the candidate whose surname appeared first on the ballot paper won 85% of the time, showing how more complicated systems can lead to random voting based on superficial factors.
Against: Type of govt created
Key Benefit of FPTP: Strong Single-Party Governments
FPTP produces strong single-party governments:
These governments are seen as having a strong mandate to pass laws effectively and carry out their policy agendas.
Historical examples of FPTP providing a strong mandate:
1980s (Thatcher government): FPTP allowed Margaret Thatcher to carry out widespread economic reforms.
1997 (Blair government): Tony Blair’s Labour government used its mandate from a strong win to enact extensive constitutional reforms.
2024 example:
Starmer’s Labour Party won a 174-seat majority with just 33.7% of the popular vote, yet there was limited public outrage over the perceived lack of full proportionality in the result. This illustrates how FPTP still lends legitimacy to governments even with a minority of the vote.
Speed and Efficiency of FPTP Government Formation
Quick government formation:
FPTP produces swift outcomes with election results typically known early in the morning after polling day, and the new government formed within 24 hours.
This contrasts with more proportional systems, which often require longer negotiations and can lead to coalition governments that take more time to form.
Challenges with Proportional Systems: Coalition Governments
Proportional systems tend to lead to coalition or minority governments:
These governments are often perceived as weaker due to the compromise nature of coalition agreements, which may result in watered-down policies or difficulty in implementing significant reforms.
Example of instability in proportional systems:
In April 2024, the Scottish government, operating under an Additional Member System (AMS), faced significant instability:
First Minister Humza Yousaf ended the coalition with the Greens after they strongly criticized the SNP for abandoning a key climate change target.
The Greens later supported a no confidence motion, leading to Yousaf’s resignation.
This highlights a key disadvantage of AMS: minority/coalition governments that are vulnerable to instability and frequent challenges from coalition partners.
For: Type of govt created
Weak Governments Under FPTP
Recent examples of weak governments:
2010 Lib Dem-Conservative Coalition - weak due to the necessity of compromise between the two parties, and it also faced challenges in passing policy without full unity.
2017 Conservative-DUP Confidence and Supply Agreement - seen as unstable and vulnerable to DUP’s demands, which led to challenges in government stability and policy making.
FPTP and Lack of Majority Support:
Even though FPTP often results in strong single-party governments, this strength is sometimes achieved without majority support from the population, leading to questions about the legitimacy of the government.
For example, in the 2024 general election, Starmer’s Labour Party won a significant majority in terms of seats but only garnered 33.7% of the vote, meaning a large portion of the electorate did not actively support the government.
Coalitions: A More Positive View
Coalitions and minority governments can offer more stability and representativeness than is often assumed.
Scottish governments under AMS (Additional Member System) have regularly been coalitions or minority governments. These governments have been relatively stable and able to pass significant reforms, showing that coalition governments can work well in ensuring representation for a broader range of views.
Compromise in coalitions can be seen as a strength:
Compromise between parties can lead to more considered and balanced policies that reflect a wider array of interests. While this can delay or water down policies, it can also create more inclusive and representative legislation.
