First Past the Post – Advantages and Disadvantages
3 advantages of FPTP:
1. Produces strong and stable government
(a) Produces large majority for a single party – main point
As an MP only needs a plurality of support to win a constituency, the party with a
plurality of votes gets a majority of seats as they win in most places.
- This allows decisive government that can get things done and bring its manifesto into
action as Parliament largely agrees
e.g GE2019 Cons got had a large plurality of 44% of the vote yet received 56% of
seats. Under a proportional system like STV, they would’ve won 48% of seats. This
difference is also because the plurality can be very slim, as 26 seats were won with
less than a 2% majority.
(b) Usually avoids hung parliaments - analysis
This “Winners bonus” provided by FPTP is significant as it prevents a hung
parliament
e.g Since 1945 only 3/21 elections resulted in a hung Parliament, compared to all 20
of Germany’s
- Hung parliaments result in coalitions which can result in the slow passing of
legislation
e.g In 2017 DUP formed a coalition with Cons, which saw little headway on Brexit as
a lack of majority made it very difficult to get anything passed, especially with large-
scale backbench Tory rebellion on top, because of things like the controversial Irish
“backstop” – the mechanism designed to guarantee an open border for Ireland
2. Single member constituencies
(a) Avoids problems of multi-member
In sparsely populated areas, like the Scottish Highlands, STV could lead to enormous
constituencies.
- This means huge campaign funding is needed to extend a party’s message to all in a
constituency.
- A party’s neglection of these people due to high costs can lead to important forms of
political messaging and education not reaching the electorate
E.g The Arbuthnott Commission warned against using STV because of these huge
constituencies in a 2005 report produced when looking at the implications of having
four electoral systems running alongside each other following devolution.
(b) Implications – analysis
This is important as this lack of campaigning results in the loss of a crucial form of
political education, which allows the electorate to accurately vote for a representative
based on their views
e.g According to an annual Hansard Society survey, 3/4 people are unable to name
their MP due to a lack of engagement with campaigns already, largely due to class
dealignment which sees people identify with a party less and therefore are less
involved in politics. Removing existing campaigns could reduce this further.
3. Simple - point
FPTP is used in many of the largest nations like the UK, the USA, India and Canada
largely due to its simplicity.
, - Under FPTP, people just put an X next the person they support. With other systems,
this isn’t so much the case and so many spoilt ballots are produced due to confusion.
e.g In 2019 there were 4200 rejected ballots for GE19, yet 11,000 for the 2022
Northern Island assembly election, when UK population 67 million compared to NIs
1.9 million. This is because other systems use a ranking system, where you choose
first, second, third etc preference vote. This confuses many people, often because
they mistake this for second and third votes.
(c) Implications
These wasted votes are significant as they can result in a large proportion of the
electorate being disenfranchised solely because of a lack of understanding
e.g 2016 London mayoral election there were 114,000 spoilt ballots due to confusion
with SV. This means roughly 5% of voters were disenfranchised and so didn’t have a
say in their mayoral representative, significantly decreasing the democratic legitimacy
of the winner Sadiq Khan, who has significant powers like setting the budget of the
Met Police.
3 disadvantages of FPTP
1. Single member constituencies
(a) Safe seats
As an MP only needs a plurality, it is often the case that a plurality of party supporters
are found in one area, meaning that a seat consistently goes to the same party
In April 2010, the Electoral Reform Society estimated that, going into the 2010
general election, of the 650 constituencies, 382 (59%) were safe seats
(b) Wasted votes
This means that a lot of votes get wasted, as any vote for a non-winning party is
wasted
e.g 2015 50% of votes were wasted as they went to candidates that did not receive a
plurality. Similarly, an additional 24% were wasted as they went to candidates who
had already won a plurality. This is significant, as, under STV, the votes that go over
can be factored into votes for other candidates, meaning people’s votes still matter
(c) Decreased turnout
Knowing their vote will not make an impact makes it less likely people will turn up to
vote, as they feel it's pointless
e.g Gorton Manchester 2019 had a 20,000 vote labour majority and turnout was
57%, well below national average of 67%, and well below Germany which uses PR
and saw 75%
2. Unrepresentative
(a) Disproportionately awards seats
This plurality sees seats being disproportionately awarded compared to the vote share,
seeing a disproportionate result
- Hence, the results are very unrepresentative of people’s views, and therefore leads to
poor governing of the country as a majority of people’s views are’t sufficiently
represented
e.g 2019 Cons got 56% of seats yet 44% of the votes. Lib Dems 11% of votes yet
1.7% of seats, and SNP 45% of Scot votes, yet 81% of their seats. This is because
FPTP rewards concentrated support, of which the SNP especially does very well as its
support is concentrated in Scottish constituencies, not distributed nationwide like the
Lib Dems
(b) Unrepresentative parliament
, This disproportionate awarding of seats is hugely significant as it ultimately produces
a Parliament that lacks democratic legitimacy, undermining democracy
e.g GE2005 saw Labour win a 65-seat majority with just 35% of the vote, and in 1997
Tony Blair won a massive 179 seat majority with 43% of the vote, compared to an 80
seat majority under Johnson who received 44% of the vote.
3. MPs without democratic legitimacy
As MPs only need a plurality, when politics is binary in nature, it is often the case that
candidates for one belief receive more support than the winning candidate, seeing
misrepresentation
e.g Doncaster 2019 Ed Miliband (v.v. remain) won with 38% of vote. Brexit party
and Cons got collectively 53% of vote and in 2016 72% voted leave. Hence, there is a
minority view representing the majority as this is clearly a leave constituency
- Hence, the majority of the people in this constituency have an MP who doesn’t
represent their views
- This has very bad political implications
e.g East Lothian 2019 in 2014 referendum saw 68% vote as unionists. Yet, they are
represented by an (nationalist) SNP MP with 36% of the vote, while unionist parties
got 62% of the vote. Results like these saw the SNP win 81% of Scotland’s seats,
providing the SNP with a large enough mandate that they can once again campaign
for Scottish independence. Nicola Sturgeon has said she wants another referendum in
2023. However, in 2019, unionist parties received a higher vote share than nationalist
parties. As a result, relations with Scotland are degrading.
, Reasons for and against holding referenda
Advantages:
1. Encourage political participation
● Referendums give more people a chance to be involved with politics, while the
promise of directly influencing legislation may even encourage higher turnout
- e.g 2016 EU referendum the turnout was 72% despite average turnout in the 21st
century being 67%
- e.g As a direct consequence of the 52% majority to leave the EU in 2016, hence in
2020 the Withdrawal Agreement Act passed in 2020 with 330 MPs backing it.
2. Keeps government in touch with public opinion
● Often the government can lose touch with the public’s wishes, so referenda provide
a definite way for the government to know how the public feels on key policy areas.
→ e.g Following the 2010 Lib Dem conservative coalition, the Lib Dems were able to
lobby for a referendum on the voting system, as they believed the public wanted it.
However, the 2011 referendum saw 68% of voters vote to keep FPTP.
→ e.g Following the 2011 Scottish Parliament election, the SNP won it’s first majority,
prompting the 2014 Independence referendum to discover whether Scotland truly
wanted independence, however 55% voted to remain
- This is significant as it can be even harder for the UK government to keep a track of
public opinion in devolved nations, so this easily allows them to keep in touch
3. Allows the government to address controversial issues
● When a particularly controversial issue arises, action by the government can upset
large numbers of people when large numbers of people strongly hold views. This
allows the government to act in a way that won’t upset as many people, as the vote
is democratic.
→ e.g Brexit was so contentious that, in 2010, there were 22 backbench rebellions on
Europe in 17 months, and in Oct 2011 81 Cons MPs disobeyed and voted for
referendum on EU
→ e.g Scotland has continually pushed for an independence referendum, however
holding the first one has allowed the UK government to focus on other matters now
and put it to rest. Hence, in July 2022, shortly before Johnson’s resignation, he sent a
letter to Nichola Sturgeon formally denying the transfer of power to Scotland to hold
Indyref2, a second referendum on Scottish independence, claiming that the 2014
result was decisive.
Bad:
1. Weakens the strength of the union
