The UK’s FPTP System: Pros, Cons, and Its Future
The UK’s First-Past-the-Post System
The First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) electoral system is used in UK general elections. FPTP is a simple plurality system where, in each constituency, the candidate with the most votes wins. The party that wins the most seats nationwide typically forms the government. While this system has its supporters, increasing evidence suggests it is often criticized and branded as unfit for purpose in the 21st century due to significant changes in the political landscape and electorate.
Arguments for the FPTP System
Creates Strong and Stable Governments
A primary advantage of FPTP is its tendency to produce strong and stable governments. Parties can win a majority of seats with a minority of the national vote, allowing them to govern decisively. For example, in 2015, the Conservatives won a majority with only 37% of the vote. This demonstrates the system’s ability to create a government with a clear mandate to implement its key policies without the complications of a coalition, where policy implementation can be challenging.
Encourages a Strong Constituent-MP Link
FPTP is designed to encourage a strong link between representatives and their constituents, as each geographical area is represented by a single MP. A notable example is Anne McGuire, who represented Stirling from 1997 to 2015. This model means voters have a clear, identifiable person to contact with problems and hold accountable for their representation.
Limits the Influence of Extremist Parties
FPTP has been praised for its ability to keep extremist parties out of mainstream politics. It is difficult for such parties to get elected because they often struggle to concentrate their support in specific constituencies. Parties like the BNP have historically performed better under proportional representation systems but have failed to gain a foothold under FPTP. A key strength, therefore, is its role in preventing extremist views from becoming a significant part of the political landscape.
Criticisms of the FPTP System
Produces Disproportionate Results
FPTP is not a proportional system, meaning the number of votes a party receives nationally does not directly equate to the number of seats it wins. This allocation can be seen as unfair. A stark example is from the 2015 election, where UKIP won nearly 4 million votes but gained only one seat, while the SNP won just over 1 million votes and was awarded 56 seats. Such outcomes can disengage many from politics, as they feel their votes do not count in a system that is not fully representative or democratic.
Governments with Minority Support
Conversely, FPTP faces scrutiny because it allows a party to govern with only a minority of the popular vote. This can lead to a lack of widespread support for policies. The government’s ability to push through legislation without broad consensus can result in flawed policies. For instance, controversial welfare reforms regarding tax credits passed the House of Commons but were held back by the House of Lords, highlighting how policies without genuine, widespread support can still advance, sparking significant debate.
Weakens Voter Representation
A significant consequence of the single-MP system is that many representatives are elected without a majority of votes in their constituency. This leads to claims that a large portion of the electorate is not truly represented. For example, in the 2005 general election, only one MP, Michael Martin of Glasgow North East, achieved more than 50% of the vote in his constituency. When only one MP represents an area, many voters can feel their opinions are ignored, which may disengage them from the political process.
Conclusion: Is FPTP Fit for the 21st Century?
In conclusion, valid arguments show that FPTP can be an effective method for electing representatives and creating strong governments. However, its significant disadvantages—namely that the resulting government may not be representative of all voters—leave the system appearing increasingly out of touch with the demands of the 21st century.