How First Past the Post is fundamentally outdated in contemporary British politics.
How can a system so historically and intrinsically linked within British politics be one that for decades hasn’t fulfilled an accurate perception of the wants and needs of its very own citizens? This blog post therefore aims to outline how First Past the Post (FPTP)is repeatedly undermining the liberal democratic principles that are at the heart of the current political landscape and how this therefore deems it as outdated and in need of change.
First past the Post describes the current electoral system within the UK that describes a ‘plurality’ voting system in which “the candidate who wins the most votes in each constituency is elected” (Cabinet Office, 2010), regardless of if they have outright majority. This system is usually described as a ‘Western liberal democracy’ in which the promotion of fair representation and equality of its people are at the forefront of priority. (UK Parliament, 2019). These principles help to outline the shortcomings of FPTP and how if an electoral system cannot meet the principles under which its state governs, then it cannot be said to be the most efficient and modern electoral system to represent the views of its people.
This is first evidenced by the consistent disproportionate representation promoting the “winner takes all “ideology, which consistently undermines a fair depiction of votes. In FPTP, there is often a discrepancy between the percentage of votes received and its subsequent seats in parliament, often resulting in over and under-representation of parties. This means a candidate does not need an outright majority to secure the seat, and other parties are not represented, even if receiving a significant share of votes. Thus, it promotes this winner-takes-all-all mentality in which “the winning party enjoys a share of seats in excess of the vote it receives “(Murphy et al.,2019), as shown in diagram 1 below. This was evident in 2019 in which the Conservatives received a leader bonus of 13% in which their 45% of votes were translated to 65% of the seats. Studying this with the deviation from proportionality score, as explained in Diagram 2, resulted in “Great Britain a whole three-tenths of the way to not being a liberal democratic voting system at all” (Dunleavy,2019).
Diagram 1 – (Murphy et al., 2019)
Diagram 2 – (Dunleavy,2019)
It could be suggested that this makes for a decisive outcome, suggesting a more stable presence in government. While this holds legitimacy, this ideology can incentivize strategic voting where they vote for the candidate most likely to win, as opposed to their preferred choice to ensure their vote counts, undermining the right of equality in democracy itself. Therefore, how can this form of system be called democratic, when the party placed in power could not be supported by the majority of the electorate?
Another outdated characteristic of FPTP is the exclusion of minority opinion within the dominant two-party system. The UK presents a two-party system dating back centuries, that represented a time in which “everyone voted for the two biggest parties, but people have changed, and this system cannot cope” (Helm,2015). This has led to the view which votes for anyone other than these parties are seen as making no impact on the result and are therefore wasted. Therefore, while FPTP represents cultural significance in the manner electoral systems operate, it cannot be said to produce results reflective of the diversity of political opinion that democracy itself aims to allow.
This can be seen first-hand by the 2015 general election results described as a “blight of our democracy “, in which UKIP while retaining 13% of the vote only won 1 seat, whereas SNP received 4.7 % but won 56 seats (Helm,2015). This blatantly outlines the misalignment of the FPTP system, equating to just under 6 million people supporting parties that were under-represented and therefore have no influence on the electoral vote. Therefore, by operating within a two-party system, FPTP is both limiting voter choice and hindering the representation of diversified minority opinion thus “denying the democratic right of the minorities” (Harewood,2016).
Therefore, one could suggest a more inclusive and proportionally representative system such as a Single-Transferrable vote which follows a preferential ranking system and thus encompasses minority voters’ views. This therefore allows for a more representative outcome in which candidates are elected in proportion to the level of votes they received, therefore aligning with democratic ideals of representation. Overall, highlighting that if FPTP is consistently not aligning with the principles that its electoral systems aspire to maintain, how can it fit into such a modern outtake of society.
Bibliography:
Cabinet Office (2010). First Past the Post and Alternative Vote explained. [online] GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/first-past-the-post-and-alternative-vote-explained.
Dunleavy , P. (2019). First-past-the-post – normal (disproportionate) service has resumed. [online] Democratic Audit. Available at: https://www.democraticaudit.com/2019/12/16/first-past-the-post-normal-disproportionate-service-has-resumed/.
Dunleavy, P. (2019). First-past-the-post: normal (disproportionate) service has resumed. [online] British Politics and Policy at LSE. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/first-past-the-post-ge2019/.
Harewood, W.G. (2016). COMPARING THE ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES OF FIRST PAST THE POST [FPTP], ALTERNATIVE VOTING [AV], AND PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION [PR] ELECTORAL SYSTEMS (2016/08/31) (Attribution:Excerpt from my Paper ‘Electoral Reform in Canada’ Metamode Institute, 2002; Refer to larger paper for detailed bibliography) Advantages of First-Past-The-Post System. [online] Available at: https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/421/ERRE/Brief/BR8555618/br-external/HarewoodWGlenn-e.pdf.
Helm, T. (2015). Election result is ‘nail in the coffin’ of first-past-the-post voting system. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/09/electoral-reform-society-result-nail-in-coffin-first-past-the-post.
Murphy , R., Jefferies, J., Gadsby, J. and Magee, E. (2019). The Politics Shed – First Past the Post. [online] The Politics Shed . Available at: https://sites.google.com/site/thepoliticsteacherorg/home/a-and-as-politics-2017/unit-1-politics-in-the-uk-year-12–13/electoral-systems/first-past-the-post.
UK Parliament (2019). Parliament , Government , Democracy and You. [online] UK Parliament . Available at: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi_jMKh1fGEAxU1TEEAHfAABssQFnoECCsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets-learning.parliament.uk%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F12%2FHow-it-Works-booklet.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1V1sU844Eqs2PBAq-jnafH&opi=89978449 [Accessed 13 Mar. 2024].
This is a great post – it is succinct and to the point. It describes the problems of first past the post (FPTP), and how it works, very well. It also presents the case for Proportional Representation (PR) as a solution. It has solid references and proof and, through these elements of the blog, certainly argues the case. However I feel that mentioning the downsides of PR, albeit briefly, may have been worthy. One implication, for example, may be PR giving fringe/extreme parties greater standing and attention. This may be a problem, where populism certainly has taken hold of Europe and Britain is no exception. Equally, it reduces the strength of government which comes with both positives and negatives – I feel you could be delved into this a bit more. Coalitions caused by PR can be unstable, yet it is representative and certainly does well in other countries and there is greater accountability. This may have been a good opportunity to involve Scandinavian countries into your example.
Overall, this blog post is succinct and well done, it has fantastic diagrams and evidence and argues the case strongly that FPTP is outdated and a PR system may well be in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
This is a very well written and convincing blog post. The author is clear on their belief that FPTP is outdated, and a leading cause of disproportionate representation in UK Parliament. The author has highlighted that FPTP causes an exclusion of minority opinion in British politics, due to the two-party-system that operates within the UK. In light of this issue, the author has argued in favour of STV; a preferential ranking system that encompasses minority voters views, causing a representative outcome and bringing the UK Parliament into a more modern setting as a consequence.
Overall, the author has argued their point of the outdated nature of FPTP throughout their article. They have highlighted the short comings of the voting practice and have suggested alternative methods in turn. However, it may have been useful to talk about some of the wider implications of underrepresentation of parties that can be caused by FPTP, and its’ implication on voting mentality. A key hazard in the use of FPTP in the conjunction with a two-party-system such as the UK Parliament, is the rise of strategic voting. This can mean voting for the party most likely to win instead of the party an individual would choose, or simply choosing to not vote at all, because there is no point if the party one would want to be represented by, will not win the seats to do so.
The blog immediately opens with a clear, engaging statement in the form of the rhetorical question ‘how can a system so historically and intrinsically linked within British politics be one that for decades hasn’t fulfilled an accurate perception of the wants and needs of its very own citizens?’. Therefore the blog instantly puts forth its central thesis and highlights to the reader that the voting system in the UK is highly flawed.
This blog is strong in its belief that first-past-the-post is an undemocratic and outdated voting system and argues this belief strongly and convincingly throughout. The author highlights how first-past-the-post system results in a disproportionate allocation of seats compared to vote share and uses the 2019 General Election results to substantiate this. Moreover, I like how the blog employs a visual aid and statistics to affirm this and really reiterate to the reader why this system of voting is unfair.
Additionally, the author proposes an alternative voting system in the form of proportional representation, specifically Single-Transferable-Vote, and suggests that this will lead to a more representative outcome and a distribution of seats that is proportional to vote share. However, it would be beneficial to develop this point with a more in-depth explanation of how this voting system works, and perhaps an empirical example of when this voting system has successfully improved representation in order to corroborate the claim that it is a better, more democratic system of government compared to First-Past-The-Post.
Ultimately, this was an excellent, well-researched and well-thought-out blog that successfully conveys the problems with the UK Parliament’s voting system.
This is an extremely concise and compelling blog post on the issue of first past the post as an outdated voting mechanism. The writer provides a clear and thorough examination of the issues created by the FPTP system in the UK. The author has also provided excellent graphics to support their opinion on the FPTP system.
Throughout the piece, the author suggests that FPTP is dated. They focused on the deficiencies of the electoral system and proposed more modern alternative voting systems like STV. Although overall this is a fantastic analysis of the current electoral system in the UK, it could have been beneficial to discuss some of the broader ramifications of FPTP, as well as its impact on voter mindset, and possibly discuss in more detail the alternative systems suggested and whether they would bring about much success.
However, overall, this is an extremely accurate and comprehensive blog post.
This post constitutes a compelling critique of the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system as used in the UK, highlighting its shortcomings in accurately representing the diversity of political opinion and ensuring fair democratic outcomes. To further develop the discussion, it is worth exploring the broader implications of electoral reform and considering alternative voting systems that may address FPTP’s deficiencies. One aspect to consider is the potential impact of electoral reform on political engagement and voter turnout. Research has shown that proportional representation systems, such as the Single Transferable Vote (STV), can lead to higher levels of voter satisfaction and participation by offering voters greater choice and empowerment; by allowing voters to express their preferences through ranked voting, STV encourages broader political engagement and ensures that even minority voices are represented in the electoral process (Farrell & McAllister, 2006). The post discusses the exclusion of minority opinion within the two-party dominant system FPTP creates, and indeed electoral reform has the potential to foster a more pluralistic and inclusive political landscape by promoting the emergence of diverse political parties and ideologies; more proportional systems allow for a more diverse range of voices to be heard.
This Blog post delivers an excellent explanation of the First Past the Post system(FPTP)that is currently in place within the Westminster system, explaining why it’s ineffective and outdated within British politics. This post uses diagrams to accurately explain how FPTP works explaining why it’s ineffective at representing minorities, critcises the ‘winner takes all’ approach that is enabled within British politics with this system and overs a viable alternative to FPTP to solve these issues, being Single-Transferable vote (STV) which would enable a actual representation of the majority of voters views within parliament and promote minority representation in the UK’s Westminster system. This post could benefit from comparing the success of STV in the UK’s devolved powers to FPTP, like Northern Ireland and if it would be worth fully implementing within the Westminster electoral system. This post also present Proportional representation (PR) as a solution to FPTP, however it would be interesting to consider more the negative effects of PR compared to FPTP