First past the post should no longer be used for general elections in the UK, how far do you agree?
(25)
First past the post is a plurality system that favours major parties such as Labour and Conservative in
UK general elections. It is a majority electoral system in which those with the most votes win. It is
straightforward to follow as it only requires one vote, marked by an ‘x’, from the electorate for their
chosen candidate. Whilst it is clear that first past the post is unfair on minor parties such as Liberal
Democrats due to the disproportionality. However, it is obvious that the system is suited to the
structure of the UK as it provides decisive results and is something the electorate is familiar with and
understand. Therefore, first past the post should remain the UK electoral system for general
elections.
First past the post should not be used in the UK as it is disproportionate and so not truly reflective of
the UK’s electorate. The vote share is not always equivalent to the seat share as seen with the 2015
election in which the Conservatives received around 37% of the vote but 51% of the seats available.
Whilst this is beneficial for the Conservatives, not all parties within the UK are able to benefit under
first past the post. Therefore, this suggests that it should no longer be used in UK general elections
as there is a clear bias to major parties as seen with UKIP in 2018 in which 3.9 million votes were
secured, yet they only received one seat. However, it could be argued that first past the post is well
suited to the UK and so should be used in general elections. It is effective in providing decisive
results that is not always possible under alternative systems such as the single transferable vote
which is currently used in Northern Ireland for local elections. First past the post is tried and tested
and since the hung Conservative and DUP deal in 2017, majority governments have been formed.
This was evident in 2019 in which Johnson secured a 365-seat majority, a landslide. This suggests
that the system is effective in providing strong and stable governments as coalitions are not usually
formed. It also encourages effective government as there is no power split as seen with coalitions
and so reduces the number of conflicts. However, coalitions are still possible under first past the
post as seen in 2010 with Cameron and Clegg for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
Therefore, the political system can be questioned of its ability to function effectively within UK
general elections.
First past the post should no longer be used in UK general elections as it is unfair on minor parties
such as the Green Party. This was evident in 2019 in which Green, the Liberal Democrats and the
Brexit Party received 16% of the votes between them yet only gained 2% of the seats available. This
suggests that first past the post limits the success of minor parties in elections and arguably
discourages voters from being true to themselves. However, this issue of disproportionality could be
seen to resolve itself in the 2017 election in which Labour received 40% of both the votes and seats
in the election. Therefore, change would only complicate the electoral process within the UK. It
could be argued that first past the post should remain in UK general elections as it is time efficient
and accessible for voters. This was clearly evident in 2017, although a deal was formed by the
Conservatives and the DUP, it was negotiated within just two weeks and so reveals an effective
system to be in place. The system also requires a single vote in contrast to system such as the
alternative vote in which ranking method is used. However, the alternative vote is still quite
simplistic as it requires a 50% majority and more reflective of the individuals vote. It is also more
accessible for minor parties and so a more just electoral system. Therefore, first past the post should
no longer be used in UK general elections as other systems such as the alternative vote are better
suited to the UK electorate.
(25)
First past the post is a plurality system that favours major parties such as Labour and Conservative in
UK general elections. It is a majority electoral system in which those with the most votes win. It is
straightforward to follow as it only requires one vote, marked by an ‘x’, from the electorate for their
chosen candidate. Whilst it is clear that first past the post is unfair on minor parties such as Liberal
Democrats due to the disproportionality. However, it is obvious that the system is suited to the
structure of the UK as it provides decisive results and is something the electorate is familiar with and
understand. Therefore, first past the post should remain the UK electoral system for general
elections.
First past the post should not be used in the UK as it is disproportionate and so not truly reflective of
the UK’s electorate. The vote share is not always equivalent to the seat share as seen with the 2015
election in which the Conservatives received around 37% of the vote but 51% of the seats available.
Whilst this is beneficial for the Conservatives, not all parties within the UK are able to benefit under
first past the post. Therefore, this suggests that it should no longer be used in UK general elections
as there is a clear bias to major parties as seen with UKIP in 2018 in which 3.9 million votes were
secured, yet they only received one seat. However, it could be argued that first past the post is well
suited to the UK and so should be used in general elections. It is effective in providing decisive
results that is not always possible under alternative systems such as the single transferable vote
which is currently used in Northern Ireland for local elections. First past the post is tried and tested
and since the hung Conservative and DUP deal in 2017, majority governments have been formed.
This was evident in 2019 in which Johnson secured a 365-seat majority, a landslide. This suggests
that the system is effective in providing strong and stable governments as coalitions are not usually
formed. It also encourages effective government as there is no power split as seen with coalitions
and so reduces the number of conflicts. However, coalitions are still possible under first past the
post as seen in 2010 with Cameron and Clegg for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
Therefore, the political system can be questioned of its ability to function effectively within UK
general elections.
First past the post should no longer be used in UK general elections as it is unfair on minor parties
such as the Green Party. This was evident in 2019 in which Green, the Liberal Democrats and the
Brexit Party received 16% of the votes between them yet only gained 2% of the seats available. This
suggests that first past the post limits the success of minor parties in elections and arguably
discourages voters from being true to themselves. However, this issue of disproportionality could be
seen to resolve itself in the 2017 election in which Labour received 40% of both the votes and seats
in the election. Therefore, change would only complicate the electoral process within the UK. It
could be argued that first past the post should remain in UK general elections as it is time efficient
and accessible for voters. This was clearly evident in 2017, although a deal was formed by the
Conservatives and the DUP, it was negotiated within just two weeks and so reveals an effective
system to be in place. The system also requires a single vote in contrast to system such as the
alternative vote in which ranking method is used. However, the alternative vote is still quite
simplistic as it requires a 50% majority and more reflective of the individuals vote. It is also more
accessible for minor parties and so a more just electoral system. Therefore, first past the post should
no longer be used in UK general elections as other systems such as the alternative vote are better
suited to the UK electorate.
