Evaluate the case for Introducing Proportional Representation for UK General Elections (30)
The UK currently uses first-past-the-post (FPTP) for its General Elections, it is not
proportionally representative. First-past-the-post has always been used for general elections
and is designed to deliver a strong and stable government. On the one hand, you could
argue it provides stable governance, and a strong MP-constituency link, whilst also
remaining popular with the electorate. However, it could be argued a system of
proportional representation may be more democratic, fair to third parties and create less of
a winners’ bonus.
On the one hand, proportional representation should be introduced as it would correct the
flaws of our current voting system. Most importantly, it would favour third parties more and
allow them to challenge two party dominance in Parliament. The current electoral system
does not give third parties the number of seats equal to the percentage of the vote they
receive. For example, in 2015, UKIP received 13% of the vote in the General Election, but
this only equated to one seat. Therefore, it is clear that proportional representation is
necessary as it allows the popularity of parties to be reflected in the number of seats they
hold, making UK Parliament more accurately representative of the wishes of voters.
Secondly, proportional representation would prevent a winners’ bonus, this is when the
success of the election winner is exaggerated, meaning they gain more seats than
proportionate, which can sometimes create an artificial majority, for example, in 1997,
Labour won 43.4% of the vote but 63.4% of seats. Therefore, creating a landslide victory for
a party which didn’t even gain the majority of eligible voters. Therefore, proportional
representation is necessary as it would prevent a mismatch between the percentage of
votes won and seats gained. This would also prevent the popularity of the largest party
being overemphasized and allowing Parliament to better fulfil its representative function.
Thirdly, proportional representation should be introduced as it gives voter more choice, it
would eliminate safe seats and wasted votes. Votes are currently of unequal value under
first-past-the-post. Those living in safe seas who do not vote for the winner have no effect
on the outcome of the election, and those in marginal seats have a disproportionate effect
on the results. For example, in 2015 it was estimated that around 50% of votes were wasted
due to safe seats and excess votes for the winner. This may be a reason for periods of
decreasing turnout as voters feel their votes do not matter and have no influence on the
results, which is true much of the time. This is proven by the fact that turnout was 72% in
the EU referendum, which voters have a direct influence over as every vote can have an
influence on the result. Therefore, it could be argued proportional representation is
necessary to ensure all votes have an effect on the election result and to encourage
increased participation by the electorate as their votes matter more than under the current
system of first-past-the-post.
On the other hand, you could argue proportional representation has more costs than
benefits. Most importantly, in many areas where it has been used it has failed to create an
effective government. For example, the Northern Irish Assembly uses the proportional
system of single transferrable vote. This has not encouraged consensus in Northern Ireland
but has created a more adversary political climate as neither party can make decisions
without the support of the other. This contributed to the government shutdown in Northern
Ireland from January 2017, as the main parties could not agree over an enquiry into the
The UK currently uses first-past-the-post (FPTP) for its General Elections, it is not
proportionally representative. First-past-the-post has always been used for general elections
and is designed to deliver a strong and stable government. On the one hand, you could
argue it provides stable governance, and a strong MP-constituency link, whilst also
remaining popular with the electorate. However, it could be argued a system of
proportional representation may be more democratic, fair to third parties and create less of
a winners’ bonus.
On the one hand, proportional representation should be introduced as it would correct the
flaws of our current voting system. Most importantly, it would favour third parties more and
allow them to challenge two party dominance in Parliament. The current electoral system
does not give third parties the number of seats equal to the percentage of the vote they
receive. For example, in 2015, UKIP received 13% of the vote in the General Election, but
this only equated to one seat. Therefore, it is clear that proportional representation is
necessary as it allows the popularity of parties to be reflected in the number of seats they
hold, making UK Parliament more accurately representative of the wishes of voters.
Secondly, proportional representation would prevent a winners’ bonus, this is when the
success of the election winner is exaggerated, meaning they gain more seats than
proportionate, which can sometimes create an artificial majority, for example, in 1997,
Labour won 43.4% of the vote but 63.4% of seats. Therefore, creating a landslide victory for
a party which didn’t even gain the majority of eligible voters. Therefore, proportional
representation is necessary as it would prevent a mismatch between the percentage of
votes won and seats gained. This would also prevent the popularity of the largest party
being overemphasized and allowing Parliament to better fulfil its representative function.
Thirdly, proportional representation should be introduced as it gives voter more choice, it
would eliminate safe seats and wasted votes. Votes are currently of unequal value under
first-past-the-post. Those living in safe seas who do not vote for the winner have no effect
on the outcome of the election, and those in marginal seats have a disproportionate effect
on the results. For example, in 2015 it was estimated that around 50% of votes were wasted
due to safe seats and excess votes for the winner. This may be a reason for periods of
decreasing turnout as voters feel their votes do not matter and have no influence on the
results, which is true much of the time. This is proven by the fact that turnout was 72% in
the EU referendum, which voters have a direct influence over as every vote can have an
influence on the result. Therefore, it could be argued proportional representation is
necessary to ensure all votes have an effect on the election result and to encourage
increased participation by the electorate as their votes matter more than under the current
system of first-past-the-post.
On the other hand, you could argue proportional representation has more costs than
benefits. Most importantly, in many areas where it has been used it has failed to create an
effective government. For example, the Northern Irish Assembly uses the proportional
system of single transferrable vote. This has not encouraged consensus in Northern Ireland
but has created a more adversary political climate as neither party can make decisions
without the support of the other. This contributed to the government shutdown in Northern
Ireland from January 2017, as the main parties could not agree over an enquiry into the
