{"id":716,"date":"2024-03-11T17:19:01","date_gmt":"2024-03-11T17:19:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/pb-happ\/?p=716"},"modified":"2024-03-11T17:19:01","modified_gmt":"2024-03-11T17:19:01","slug":"winner-takes-all","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/pb-happ\/2024\/03\/11\/winner-takes-all\/","title":{"rendered":"Winner Takes All."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Take back Parliament\u2019 protest, creator\/ credit: flickr.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Winner Takes All<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A system that is both championed and condemned for its ability to shape the elections across the UK is First-Past-The-Post (FPTP). FPTP is an electoral system used within the United Kingdom (UK), it\u2019s \u201cused for the election of MPs to the House of Commons and for some local government elections.\u201d (UK Parliament, 2024). The UK is one of many governments that utilise the FPTP electoral system; Canada, the United States and New Zealand are examples of other countries that implement it. FPTP is defined as, \u201can electoral<\/a> system in which a candidate or party is selected by achievement of a simple majority.\u201d (Oxford Languages, 2024). Thus, FPTP is often attributed with the \u2018Winner takes all\u2019 agenda. This notion is further supported by the knowledge that \u201cDuring a General Election, 650 constituencies across the country each hold separate contests. To become an MP, a candidate needs the largest number of votes in their constituency.\u201d (Electoral Reform Society, 2017). Whilst some may revere the FPTP system and the advantages it brings to elections in the UK, it\u2019s not without its flaws. This blog will explore the advantages and disadvantages. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Advantages<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Initially, FPTP is perceived as a positive electoral system. This is because \u201cIt provides a clear cut choice for voters between two main parties.\u201d (ACE, 2024). This is an essential criteria when approaching electoral systems because it provides simplicity to the general population. Moreover, \u201cIt gives rise to single party governments.\u201d (ACE, 2024). A single party government will provide stability to the UK and make decision-making more efficient, as there will be less need for negotiations and compromise. In some cases \u201cIt gives rise to a coherent parliamentary opposition. In theory\u2026 present itself as a realistic alternative to the government of the day.\u201d (ACE, 2024). Having opposition is crucial to democracy as it offers balance on the ruling party\u2019s power. Another important factor to consider in favour of the FPTP system is that \u201cIt allows voters to choose between people, rather than just between parties.\u201d (ACE, 2024). Consequently, by allowing individuals to pick candidates, constituents will develop a connection to their representatives, which can lead to a more diverse range of MPs. And \u201cFinally, FPTP systems are particularly praised for being simple to use and understand. A valid vote requires only one mark beside the name or symbol of one candidate, and the number of candidates on the ballot paper is usually small, making the count easy to administer for electoral officials.\u201d (ACE, 2024). One of the most important things to consider when implementing an electoral system in a democratic society is how accessible that electoral system will be for the majority of people, as ultimately the public\u2019s opinion is what carries the vote. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Disadvantages<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, one of the major disadvantages to the FPTP electoral system is that minority groups are excluded from representation. These minority groups consist of women, religions that aren\u2019t christian and race. Conclusively, equality and representation are stripped away as the imbalance of democracy is perpetuated. The disproportionate factors of FPTP are noted by Dunleavy, \u201cIn 2019, however, FPTP reverted most of the way back to its historic pattern, awarding a huge \u2018leader\u2019s bonus\u2019 of seats to the Conservatives in England and to the SNP in Scotland.\u201d (Dunleavy, 2019). The source implies that FPTP heavily favoured the SNP and Conservative parties, as these parties received a disproportionate number of seats compared to their share of the popular vote. Thus an imbalance of political power could ensue. 
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table showing \u2018deviation from proportionality\u2019 score, credit\/ creator: https:\/\/blogs.lse.ac.uk<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, it is examined that \u201cusing the Alternative DV (ADV) score explained above, this actually translates to a score of 30.1%, showing that FPTP in Great Britain as a whole was three-tenths of the way to not being a liberal democratic voting system at all.\u201d (Dunleavy, 2019). Essentially, Dunleavy evaluates how the FPTP system fails to be considered democratic as the evaluation of proportionality conveys the exclusion of minority parties. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alternatives <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consequently, Proportional Representation (PR)<\/a> is often proposed as an alternative to FPTP. However, PR, like many electoral systems, isn\u2019t without its disadvantages. However, with PR there would be further representation for minority groups and less disproportionation, as PR corresponds the number of votes per number of seats . <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, whilst each electoral system has their own advantages and disadvantages it becomes evident that FPTP has not benefited the UK thus far. Electoral reform is imperative, in order to provide representation for minorities and address the democratic flaws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n