FPTP should be scrapped and replaced with more PR Flashcards
(6 cards)
1) REPRESENTATION for
FPTP is very unrepresentative as it is a plurality system — MPs often win without majority support in their constituency.
2024 election: Labour’s Terry Jermy won South West Norfolk with just 26.7% of the vote — only 15.7% of the population if non-voters are counted.
Nationally, this leads to disproportionate results:
Labour won 63% of seats in 2024 with only 33.7% of the vote — a huge ‘winner’s bonus’.
FPTP favors parties with concentrated support, hurting smaller or evenly spread parties:
Reform UK (2024): 14.3% of the vote → only 5 seats (0.8%).
Lib Dems (2024): 12.2% vote → 72 seats, which doesn’t reflect support.
In 2019, they had 11.5% of the vote and just 11 seats (1.7%) — under proportionality, they’d have had 75.
Modelling by Make Votes Matter (2024):
Under AMS, Reform would’ve received 91 seats; under STV, 71 seats — far more reflective of support.
1) representation AGAINST: FPTP should not be scrapped
FPTP ensures a strong MP–constituency link.
Single MP is accountable to a defined local area, allowing effective representation.
MPs deal with 300–500 emails/week and spend about 40% of their time on constituency casework.
December 2023: 22 Conservative MPs backed a Labour amendment on infected blood scandal—rebelling due to local pressure.
Caroline Nokes, for example, acted on behalf of victims in Romsey and Southampton North.
FPTP can block extremist parties from gaining influence:
BNP (2010): 2% vote, 0 seats.
In contrast, 2009 EU elections (with Closed List PR) → 6.2% vote = 2 seats for BNP.
2) VOTER CHOICE for
FOR: FPTP should be scrapped
Voters get one vote — limited ability to express full political preferences.
Split-ticket voting isn’t possible, unlike AMS, where voters get 2 votes.
Tactical voting is widespread:
Make Votes Matter (2024): 1 in 5 voted tactically; 58% of voters got an MP they didn’t vote for — highest since WWII.
Votes are often wasted:
Only the winner matters; all other votes in a constituency have no impact on seat outcome.
Unequal vote value:
Safe seats = low turnout & little campaigning.
Manchester Rusholme (2024): Labour won with 51.9%, but turnout only 40%.
Marginal seats get disproportionate attention.
Thanet South: key marginal; has voted with winning party at every election since its creation.
In systems like STV, voters rank candidates, reducing tactical voting and making more votes count.
2) VOTER CHOICE against
AGAINST: Keep FPTP
FPTP is simple to use — just mark one box.
Results are announced quickly, enabling fast government formation.
Sunderland South (2024) declared at 23:15; Starmer became PM by 12:40pm the next day.
Familiarity and simplicity contribute to public support:
2011 AV referendum: 68% voted against changing the system (42% turnout).
Complex systems can confuse voters and cause ‘donkey voting’:
2019 NI local elections (STV): when two candidates were from same party, first alphabetically won 85% of the time; second only 54%.
3) TYPE OF GOVT CREATED for
FPTP creates strong governments, but not necessarily legitimate ones.
Labour (2024): won 174-seat majority with just 33.7% of the vote — little public outrage, but weak mandate.
Strong governments can act without consensus, risking extreme or poorly considered policies.
Proportional systems, while more likely to produce coalitions, can lead to more representative and consensus-based policymaking.
Coalition instability is not guaranteed:
Many Scottish governments have been minority or coalitions, yet have been stable and effective.
Compromise can be positive, producing more balanced policies.
The STV system benefits Northern Ireland by promoting power-sharing and representation across divided communities, ensuring both unionist and nationalist voices are included in governance, which helps maintain peace and stability.
3) TYPE OF GOVT CREATED against
AGAINST: Keep FPTP
FPTP usually delivers single-party majority governments, allowing fast decision-making and policy implementation.
Enabled Thatcher (1980s) and Blair (1997) to pass major reforms.
More proportional systems often produce coalitions, which can lead to instability:
Scotland (April 2024): SNP-Green coalition collapsed after disputes over climate targets and gender care policy.
Greens supported no-confidence vote in Humza Yousaf, who then resigned.
Shows how AMS, used in Scotland, can lead to fragile governments.
However, FPTP hasn’t always produced strong governments:
2010: Conservative–Lib Dem coalition.
2017: Conservative–DUP confidence and supply agreement.
