First Past The Post - Advantages and Disadvantages - Advantages and disadvantages table in A Level and IB Government & Politics

Created by: ChloeLawrence
Created on: 10-01-14 12:22


	First Past The Post - Advantages and Disadvantages
	Advantages It has existed for a long time, is widely accepted and tradition for the Westminster General Elections. It is also easy to understand, meaning even those who are not hugely knowledgeable in politics are able to participate. It retains a strong link between an MP and his or her constituency; this provides an access point for citizens to participate in the democratic process. This is not as easy to do in electoral systems that have multi-member constituencies, as your constituency will be much larger so your representative may live too far away for you to be able to visit. If you have more than one representative for your area it also causes the problem of choosing which one of your representatives to approach. It tends to produce a strong and stable government, which therefore has a clear majority in the House of commons and a strong mandate to govern (although the 2010 result weakens this argument). A strong government means they will be able to introduce the policies in their manifesto, which they were voted into government to do. A stable governement means they are unlikely to collapse or recieve a 'vote of no confidence,' so we can be sure the government will last its entire 5 year term ensuring the country has stability.	Disadvantages Governments are being elected on a minority of votes cast in a general election, meaning those in government who are making all the decision do not represent the opinions of the majority of the country. This leads to doubts about democratic legitimacy. The was particularly prevalent in the 2005 election, when Labour secured a majority of the seats in the House of Commons with only 35.2% of the total vote, however this issue was solved in 2010 with the formation of a coalition, so 59.1% of the total votes was for one of the two parties that make up to coalition. So in this sense the current coalition is more legitimate than the previous Labour government. FPTP is extremely discriminative against smaller parties due to our 'two party system.' The Liberal Democrats are a prime example of such discrimination; in the 2010 General Election they received 23% of the votes but just 57 seas, while Labour received 29% of votes and 258 seats. On average, 33,000-34,000 votes are needed to elect a Labour or Conservative MP, but 120,000 to elect a Liberal Democrat. This is why the Lib Dems were pushing for the AV referendum in 2011, as a more proportional system would see them receive more seats. There are a large number of 'wasted' votes, for example those living in a 'safe seat' voting against the traditional party or a vote for a smaller party that is extremely unlikely to win a seat (eg. the Green party). This means that votes in marginal seats are effectively worth more than those in safe seats, politicians are more likely to spend time in these areas prior to an election to try and convince the voters to 'swing' to their party. An example of a safe seat is Liverpool Walton which is held by labour. This type of vote wastage may be one of the reasons for low turnout, people do not see the point in voting if their vote is not going to count.
	Evaluation Though there **** several reasons for declining voter turnouts, it is believed that disillusionment with an electoral ssem that is widely percieved to be unfair may be one of the causes with political disengagement. In that sense it may be a good idea to change our electoral system, with the aim of increasing voter turn out to give the results more legitimacy. However the 67.9% 'no' vote in the 2011 AV referendum would suggest that the voters do not want the change. Although, due to the simplistic nature of referendums, it only asked if the voters wanted to change to AV not if they wanted it to be changed at all. So some voters may have voted no to the use of AV but did want to change the system. Overall, although I do not agree with how unfair the FPTP system is based on it's disadvantages discussed above, I do believe it is currently the best system for our country. A more proportional system would almost guarantee coalitions every election, which for the U.K would mean the Liberal Democrats would almost permanently remain in power as they are the 'third party.'

First Past The Post - Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages

It has existed for a long time, is widely accepted and tradition for the Westminster General Elections. It is also easy to understand, meaning even those who are not hugely knowledgeable in politics are able to participate.
It retains a strong link between an MP and his or her constituency; this provides an access point for citizens to participate in the democratic process. This is not as easy to do in electoral systems that have multi-member constituencies, as your constituency will be much larger so your representative may live too far away for you to be able to visit. If you have more than one representative for your area it also causes the problem of choosing which one of your representatives to approach.
It tends to produce a strong and stable government, which therefore has a clear majority in the House of commons and a strong mandate to govern (although the 2010 result weakens this argument). A strong government means they will be able to introduce the policies in their manifesto, which they were voted into government to do. A stable governement means they are unlikely to collapse or recieve a 'vote of no confidence,' so we can be sure the government will last its entire 5 year term ensuring the country has stability.

Disadvantages

Governments are being elected on a minority of votes cast in a general election, meaning those in government who are making all the decision do not represent the opinions of the majority of the country. This leads to doubts about democratic legitimacy. The was particularly prevalent in the 2005 election, when Labour secured a majority of the seats in the House of Commons with only 35.2% of the total vote, however this issue was solved in 2010 with the formation of a coalition, so 59.1% of the total votes was for one of the two parties that make up to coalition. So in this sense the current coalition is more legitimate than the previous Labour government.
FPTP is extremely discriminative against smaller parties due to our 'two party system.' The Liberal Democrats are a prime example of such discrimination; in the 2010 General Election they received 23% of the votes but just 57 seas, while Labour received 29% of votes and 258 seats. On average, 33,000-34,000 votes are needed to elect a Labour or Conservative MP, but 120,000 to elect a Liberal Democrat. This is why the Lib Dems were pushing for the AV referendum in 2011, as a more proportional system would see them receive more seats.
There are a large number of 'wasted' votes, for example those living in a 'safe seat' voting against the traditional party or a vote for a smaller party that is extremely unlikely to win a seat (eg. the Green party). This means that votes in marginal seats are effectively worth more than those in safe seats, politicians are more likely to spend time in these areas prior to an election to try and convince the voters to 'swing' to their party. An example of a safe seat is Liverpool Walton which is held by labour. This type of vote wastage may be one of the reasons for low turnout, people do not see the point in voting if their vote is not going to count.

Evaluation

Though there **** several reasons for declining voter turnouts, it is believed that disillusionment with an electoral ssem that is widely percieved to be unfair may be one of the causes with political disengagement. In that sense it may be a good idea to change our electoral system, with the aim of increasing voter turn out to give the results more legitimacy. However the 67.9% 'no' vote in the 2011 AV referendum would suggest that the voters do not want the change. Although, due to the simplistic nature of referendums, it only asked if the voters wanted to change to AV not if they wanted it to be changed at all. So some voters may have voted no to the use of AV but did want to change the system. Overall, although I do not agree with how unfair the FPTP system is based on it's disadvantages discussed above, I do believe it is currently the best system for our country. A more proportional system would almost guarantee coalitions every election, which for the U.K would mean the Liberal Democrats would almost permanently remain in power as they are the 'third party.'

Get Revising

First Past The Post - Advantages and Disadvantages