'First Past The Post is no longer fit for purpose' Discuss
First past the post is no longer capable of successfully supporting the electoral system.
Although having many positives such as simplicity and not being time-consuming, first past
the post creates votes of unequal value as well as creates limited choices. England would
better suit the ‘additional member system’ which is already used by both Scotland and
Wales. The system would have the capability to function in the ways that first past the post
have not.
First past the post is broken as representatives have the ability to be elected without high
amounts of support from the public as the size of the winning margin is irrelevant. As a
result, FPTP encourages tactical voting, as voters are not voting for the candidate they like
(or support) but instead the candidate they most like against the candidate they most dislike.
This therefore can be labeled as a wasted vote, as seats are ultimately not being accurately
represented. This, therefore, shows that the system is broken as people are being pressured
to vote despite the limitations. The system as a result also enables candidates to avoid
voting, as they do not feel represented. An example of this is in the 2020 US election when
many Americans admitted they were not voting for Biden due to his policies, but due to
wanting Donald Trump to be removed from office.
However, an advantage of FPTP is that it is easy to understand as well as to operate. The
ballot paper is simple to read and only requires the voter to vote once, which as a result also
makes counting the votes straightforward and establishes a winner in quick time. The
system has been used in a majority of countries since 1917, meaning that as a result, voters
are familiar with the current system. FPTP, therefore, is effective and legitimate, therefore
bringing into the question ‘why fix which isn’t broken?’ FPTP is something that people are
used to and understand, and to change that, it would take time for candidates to adjust to the
new electoral system.
FPTP has become outdated to modern politics which as a result means it no longer
functions as it should. FPTP is less effective in persuading people into not voting for smaller
parties. This therefore also creates wasted votes, as larger parties are guaranteed to be
elected over smaller parties. In both 2010 and 2015, both Labour and the Conservatives the
combined vote was the lowest in other postwar elections, whilst support for the Liberal
Democrats grew by 20% in 2010. This as a result also means that more parties are winning
more seats. A functioning FPTP would see larger parties getting more seats as well as
smaller parties getting less than they deserved. By the FPTP failing it means that countries
politics isn't up to date and reflecting people the way it should be doing, whilst something like
supplementary votes which requires one vote, however, can have two, would better fix that
system as people could vote for a large and smaller party without it affecting seats too
drastically, as the bigger party will still have a guaranteed majority.
On the other hand, FPTP provides voters with a singular vote in which they are pressured to
use therefore more responsibly, as they are suggested to do research into their vote. In
Yorkshire, Labour is most commonly voted for due to its support of the working class. This
example shows that parties particularly aim at certain areas to create (sometimes) a
guaranteed vote. This as a result also has enabled people to vote for the same parties each
time, however, that is understandable in the UK where you’re voting for a party instead of a
First past the post is no longer capable of successfully supporting the electoral system.
Although having many positives such as simplicity and not being time-consuming, first past
the post creates votes of unequal value as well as creates limited choices. England would
better suit the ‘additional member system’ which is already used by both Scotland and
Wales. The system would have the capability to function in the ways that first past the post
have not.
First past the post is broken as representatives have the ability to be elected without high
amounts of support from the public as the size of the winning margin is irrelevant. As a
result, FPTP encourages tactical voting, as voters are not voting for the candidate they like
(or support) but instead the candidate they most like against the candidate they most dislike.
This therefore can be labeled as a wasted vote, as seats are ultimately not being accurately
represented. This, therefore, shows that the system is broken as people are being pressured
to vote despite the limitations. The system as a result also enables candidates to avoid
voting, as they do not feel represented. An example of this is in the 2020 US election when
many Americans admitted they were not voting for Biden due to his policies, but due to
wanting Donald Trump to be removed from office.
However, an advantage of FPTP is that it is easy to understand as well as to operate. The
ballot paper is simple to read and only requires the voter to vote once, which as a result also
makes counting the votes straightforward and establishes a winner in quick time. The
system has been used in a majority of countries since 1917, meaning that as a result, voters
are familiar with the current system. FPTP, therefore, is effective and legitimate, therefore
bringing into the question ‘why fix which isn’t broken?’ FPTP is something that people are
used to and understand, and to change that, it would take time for candidates to adjust to the
new electoral system.
FPTP has become outdated to modern politics which as a result means it no longer
functions as it should. FPTP is less effective in persuading people into not voting for smaller
parties. This therefore also creates wasted votes, as larger parties are guaranteed to be
elected over smaller parties. In both 2010 and 2015, both Labour and the Conservatives the
combined vote was the lowest in other postwar elections, whilst support for the Liberal
Democrats grew by 20% in 2010. This as a result also means that more parties are winning
more seats. A functioning FPTP would see larger parties getting more seats as well as
smaller parties getting less than they deserved. By the FPTP failing it means that countries
politics isn't up to date and reflecting people the way it should be doing, whilst something like
supplementary votes which requires one vote, however, can have two, would better fix that
system as people could vote for a large and smaller party without it affecting seats too
drastically, as the bigger party will still have a guaranteed majority.
On the other hand, FPTP provides voters with a singular vote in which they are pressured to
use therefore more responsibly, as they are suggested to do research into their vote. In
Yorkshire, Labour is most commonly voted for due to its support of the working class. This
example shows that parties particularly aim at certain areas to create (sometimes) a
guaranteed vote. This as a result also has enabled people to vote for the same parties each
time, however, that is understandable in the UK where you’re voting for a party instead of a
