Advantages of FPTP
Disadvantages of FPTP
Strong Government:
The government will have a clear overall majority, can provide effective leadership for the nation. This is useful in times of crisis. For example Tony Blair saw a sufficient enough threat in Iraq to invade- this decisive action made him accountable.
Disproportionate Results:
The number of seats is not proportionate to the number of votes.
For example in 1951 Labour won 48.8% of votes, Conservatives won 48% of the votes but Conservatives won 26 more seats.
Stable Government:
The government will have a clear overall majority, meaning they have a consent of the majority and mandate to govern.
Smaller Parties Lose Out:
Smaller parties are unable to win seats because their votes are spread thinly across the country instead of being concentrated in a single constituency.
Strong MP to Constituency Link:
FPTP uses a single MP to a single constituency. Therefore there is a closer link and the constituent is clear on who they can approach for help.For example Oona King was held accountable after she voted in favor of the Iraq war despite the majority of her constituent’s disagreement.
Lack of Choice:
Voters only get one vote as they cannot vote for more than one candidate, so they have to pick the most compatible.
Provides a Clear Winner:
There is no need to form a coalition as there is a clear winner on who should form a government immediately after the election. Although under FPTP there can be a Hung Parliament overall which would require a coalition or support from independents or other parties.
Minority Government:
Governments can be elected to form a government after winning only a minority of the votes. This threatens the legitimacy of the mandate.
For example, In 2005 Labour won the election with only 35.2% of the popular vote
Comments
No comments have yet been made