Evaluate the view that the First-past-the-post system used in UK general elections should be
discarded since it lacks democratic legitimacy. You must consider this view and the
alternative to it in a balanced way.
The first past the post system is a plurality electoral system in which the winning candidate only
needs one more vote than their leading opponent to win a seat. The question being asked is
whether this system inherently undermines democracy. In fact, it should be discarded as it does lack
democratic legitimacy as it does not favour third parties and voters that have placed support in
these minor parties are excluded from the political landscape as they are not represented in
parliament, or even at the level of their own constituency as they may not have an MP that shares
their same views.
The first past the post system does not reflect the way people vote in fact it suppresses political
diversity, as millions are denied a voice due to the way in which this system works this results in
parliaments lack representation while in government, as well as the fact that third parties are heavily
undercompensated though they have won a significant number of votes. For example , In the 2019
general election the green party, the liberal democrats and Brexit party received 16% of the vote
(5.2 million) yet they shared only 2% of the seats and The Liberal Democrats were particularly
disadvantaged by FPTP, losing a seat despite increasing their overall vote share by 4% , this shows
that the system is in fact undemocratic as the system works in favour of the Labour and
Conservative parties who over the years have developed what are known as “safe seats” where
clusters of voters vote for these two main parties putting minor parties who's voters are relatively
more spread out at a huge disadvantage. On the other hand, the First past the Post system almost
always produces a strong and stable government that serves a full term. Whereas a proportional
representation system typically produces coalition governments which are weak and unsuited to the
British political context. An example of one of the few coalitions in British politics was the Cameron-
Clegg coalition in 2010 it wasn’t considered a stable time due to the recession and ongoing security
concerns. Coalitions and minority governments are a rare occurrence under FPTP but if this was
discarded and replaced with PR then the likelihood of coalitions would be much greater, which is not
suitable. Overall, although coalitions may not be seen as beneficial and the FPTP produces more
stability, the lack of representation causes voter apathy which is not ideal as the system
inadvertently becomes undemocratic which will have more of a significant impact.
Excess votes for winning candidates and votes for losing candidates are called wasted votes and
have no impact on the makeup of government, voters in safe seats voters who have a different
preference are unrepresented as their constituency remains as it was. This results in low turnout
which does make the system more authoritarian (I needed a synonym for undemocratic because Ive
used the word too much). For example, in 2019, 71.2% of votes were wasted, In 2017, this figure
was 68.4% and in 2015 it was 74.4%., this shows voter dissatisfaction meaning that the system is in
fact in need of reform if turnout is so low, FPTP elections suffer from low turnout. Conversely, the
FPTP system excludes extremist parties from parliamentary representation. Unless an extremist
minority party's electoral support is geographically concentrated, it is unlikely to win any seats under
FPTP. But, From the statistical evidence the occurrence of wasted votes is causing lower turnout
which makes non-conventional participation more prevalent and makes voting more irrelevant
which causes the FPTP to be more undemocratic as the government doesn’t represent a majority.
This is more significant than the exclusion of extremist parties as it is highly unlikely that a large
geographical vote would go to an extremist party.
discarded since it lacks democratic legitimacy. You must consider this view and the
alternative to it in a balanced way.
The first past the post system is a plurality electoral system in which the winning candidate only
needs one more vote than their leading opponent to win a seat. The question being asked is
whether this system inherently undermines democracy. In fact, it should be discarded as it does lack
democratic legitimacy as it does not favour third parties and voters that have placed support in
these minor parties are excluded from the political landscape as they are not represented in
parliament, or even at the level of their own constituency as they may not have an MP that shares
their same views.
The first past the post system does not reflect the way people vote in fact it suppresses political
diversity, as millions are denied a voice due to the way in which this system works this results in
parliaments lack representation while in government, as well as the fact that third parties are heavily
undercompensated though they have won a significant number of votes. For example , In the 2019
general election the green party, the liberal democrats and Brexit party received 16% of the vote
(5.2 million) yet they shared only 2% of the seats and The Liberal Democrats were particularly
disadvantaged by FPTP, losing a seat despite increasing their overall vote share by 4% , this shows
that the system is in fact undemocratic as the system works in favour of the Labour and
Conservative parties who over the years have developed what are known as “safe seats” where
clusters of voters vote for these two main parties putting minor parties who's voters are relatively
more spread out at a huge disadvantage. On the other hand, the First past the Post system almost
always produces a strong and stable government that serves a full term. Whereas a proportional
representation system typically produces coalition governments which are weak and unsuited to the
British political context. An example of one of the few coalitions in British politics was the Cameron-
Clegg coalition in 2010 it wasn’t considered a stable time due to the recession and ongoing security
concerns. Coalitions and minority governments are a rare occurrence under FPTP but if this was
discarded and replaced with PR then the likelihood of coalitions would be much greater, which is not
suitable. Overall, although coalitions may not be seen as beneficial and the FPTP produces more
stability, the lack of representation causes voter apathy which is not ideal as the system
inadvertently becomes undemocratic which will have more of a significant impact.
Excess votes for winning candidates and votes for losing candidates are called wasted votes and
have no impact on the makeup of government, voters in safe seats voters who have a different
preference are unrepresented as their constituency remains as it was. This results in low turnout
which does make the system more authoritarian (I needed a synonym for undemocratic because Ive
used the word too much). For example, in 2019, 71.2% of votes were wasted, In 2017, this figure
was 68.4% and in 2015 it was 74.4%., this shows voter dissatisfaction meaning that the system is in
fact in need of reform if turnout is so low, FPTP elections suffer from low turnout. Conversely, the
FPTP system excludes extremist parties from parliamentary representation. Unless an extremist
minority party's electoral support is geographically concentrated, it is unlikely to win any seats under
FPTP. But, From the statistical evidence the occurrence of wasted votes is causing lower turnout
which makes non-conventional participation more prevalent and makes voting more irrelevant
which causes the FPTP to be more undemocratic as the government doesn’t represent a majority.
This is more significant than the exclusion of extremist parties as it is highly unlikely that a large
geographical vote would go to an extremist party.
