Evaluate the extent to which the case for retaining the First
Past The Post system for the UK general elections is
convincing
First Past the Post is a single member plurality system that is used for
parliamentary elections in the UK, and local councils in England and Wales. It
could be argued that this system is erroneous, and not up to modern standards,
resulting in the need for a new system. This essay will argue that due to factors
such as the issue of legitimacy or under- representation, the case for retaining the
First Past the Post system is not convincing.
One reason as to why the First Past the Post system shouldn’t be replaced is
because it creates a strong and stable government. Throughout the years, FPTP
has been able to consistently achieve a single party majority government, for
example Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair won a combined total of six elections,
four having majorities over 100, with Blairs 1997 elections being a huge success in
creating a one-party government with a clear majority. This ensures that the
government will be stable and last a full term in o ce, allowing it to be able to
deliver on its manifesto commitments. Despite this, during the last three elections
there has been two hung parliaments, and a small single party majority, showing
how FPTP is no longer capable of creating a strong and stable government. On the
other hand, the case for retaining FPTP is unconvincing due to majority
governments. As FPTP results in the plurality rule, parliamentary majorities can be
achieved with only just 35% of the vote. A majority of support is not needed to win
a seat, as only one more vote is needed than the runner-up, which can lead to an
issue of questioning legitimacy, as a government is able to lead with a lack of
support across the UK. Although FPTP is bene cial by creating a strong and stable
government, the issue of legitimacy that majority governments leads to out weighs
this, and proves that the case for retaining FPTP for UK general elections is
unconvincing.
Another reason as to why the FPTP system should be retained is due to its
prevention of extremist parties from gaining seats in an election. For example, The
British Nationalist Party is recognised for its fascist views on immigrants and race,
and the FPTP system does not legitimise them by giving them representation. Due
to a lack of concentrated support, it is extremely di cult for a minority party to win
votes, as they are unlikely to have enough support overall to win a constituency.
This is a huge advantage as it prevents parties from encouraging their
discriminative and dangerous opinions to impressionable voters, possibly creating
con ict and division amongst the public. However, this could be argued to lead to
under-representation of smaller 3rd parties, yet again questioning the legitimacy of
the government. A strong disadvantage to FPTP is the lack of choice for voters.
Due to plurality systems creating a two-party system, the voter is limited in their
fl fi ffiffi
Past The Post system for the UK general elections is
convincing
First Past the Post is a single member plurality system that is used for
parliamentary elections in the UK, and local councils in England and Wales. It
could be argued that this system is erroneous, and not up to modern standards,
resulting in the need for a new system. This essay will argue that due to factors
such as the issue of legitimacy or under- representation, the case for retaining the
First Past the Post system is not convincing.
One reason as to why the First Past the Post system shouldn’t be replaced is
because it creates a strong and stable government. Throughout the years, FPTP
has been able to consistently achieve a single party majority government, for
example Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair won a combined total of six elections,
four having majorities over 100, with Blairs 1997 elections being a huge success in
creating a one-party government with a clear majority. This ensures that the
government will be stable and last a full term in o ce, allowing it to be able to
deliver on its manifesto commitments. Despite this, during the last three elections
there has been two hung parliaments, and a small single party majority, showing
how FPTP is no longer capable of creating a strong and stable government. On the
other hand, the case for retaining FPTP is unconvincing due to majority
governments. As FPTP results in the plurality rule, parliamentary majorities can be
achieved with only just 35% of the vote. A majority of support is not needed to win
a seat, as only one more vote is needed than the runner-up, which can lead to an
issue of questioning legitimacy, as a government is able to lead with a lack of
support across the UK. Although FPTP is bene cial by creating a strong and stable
government, the issue of legitimacy that majority governments leads to out weighs
this, and proves that the case for retaining FPTP for UK general elections is
unconvincing.
Another reason as to why the FPTP system should be retained is due to its
prevention of extremist parties from gaining seats in an election. For example, The
British Nationalist Party is recognised for its fascist views on immigrants and race,
and the FPTP system does not legitimise them by giving them representation. Due
to a lack of concentrated support, it is extremely di cult for a minority party to win
votes, as they are unlikely to have enough support overall to win a constituency.
This is a huge advantage as it prevents parties from encouraging their
discriminative and dangerous opinions to impressionable voters, possibly creating
con ict and division amongst the public. However, this could be argued to lead to
under-representation of smaller 3rd parties, yet again questioning the legitimacy of
the government. A strong disadvantage to FPTP is the lack of choice for voters.
Due to plurality systems creating a two-party system, the voter is limited in their
fl fi ffiffi
