FPTP has more disadvantages than advantages

FPTP produces disproportionate outcomes, leading to under and over representation

•Since 1945, no elected government with a majority of seats has ever won over 50% of the popular vote.

•A plurality system produces the effect of a “winners bonus” – winning 100% of a seat with less than 100% of vote.

•Multiplied across 650 seats, nationally, produces over-representation and under-representation of parties. Known as the ‘landslide effect’.

2001 – Labour 40% vote, 62% seats (165 majority)

2024 – Labour 33% vote, 63% seats – (lowest % of vote share to gain a majority on record / lower vote share than Corbyn in 2017 and 2019) - occurs regularly

Some parties are significantly under-represented, particularly smaller parties like Greens, UKIP

2015 - UKIP:   12.6% vote – 1 seat

SNP:   4.7% vote – 56 seats

-difficult for smaller parties to gain accurate and “fair” representation - larger parties over rewarded for concentrated support

Counter-argument:  

FPTP helps to prevent extremist fringe parties gaining a platform, encouraging moderate politics 

2010 results show that the British National Party under a proportional system would have won 13 seats with 2% of the vote. (And UKIP with a further 20 seats)  Under FPTP these parties were prevent from breaking into the mainstream politics, because none have sufficiently concentrated levels of support. 

• stabilises politics

• prevents emerges of extremist parties - so not providing them with a legitimate platform in UK and not giving them media exposure to grow such parties - not normalised in UK politics

• EU countries normalised these nationalist parties Poland, Italy and Hungary - use proportional systems

with FPTP smaller parties, such as Far Left and Far Right are unlikely to gain representation. 

reform - reject far right claim - 2024 shows how difficult it is fora fringe party to break through - instead favours broad church parties e.g. Labour and Conserv which absorb policies from smaller parties and gain their votes

 Unequal value of votes and wasted votes

Votes in safe seats seem less valuable than votes in marginal seats.

Bootle Liverpool - Lab SS over 80 yrs held - critics say that the 22,000 votes here that are excessive votes for labour are wasted and unnecessary

Approximately two thirds of seats are considered “safe” – they do not change hands at election time.

•Windsor  - held by Conservatives since the 1880s
Voters in marginal seats therefore determine the outcome of elections – they have more of an impact on the overall outcome than voters in safe seats. 

Therefore, votes in marginal seats are more “valuable” than safe seats.As a result….Parties focus greater attention and effort on marginal seats;

Conversely, less attention and focus is given to safe seats and on the quality of their candidates.

Voters may feel they have less of an impact as their their constituency result is a foregone conclusion.

MPs representing safe seats appear to be less accountable than other MPs, the chances of being removed are extremely low.

Counter-argument: The problem of safe and marginal seats is overstated

Safe seats are overturned – most notably 2019 and the fall of the “red wall” – Labour held seats in the North.

Rother Valley – Labour since 1918 turned conserv.

2024 - Safe seats are no longer safe:

Conservative held seat since 1874  (150 years)

Won by Lib Dems in 2024

Safe seats are safe for a reason – there is overwhelming support for that party.

Bootle in Liverpool -  Labour safe seat - held for over 80 years. 

There is little dissatisfaction with the result

2024 – numbers of marginal seats increased – now 220 = 34%

Safe seats achieve similar levels of turnout to marginal seats, sometimes higher - doesn’t impact participation

led to 2 party dominance

limiting choice for the electorate

Since 1945 every government was Labour or Conservative apart from 2010; however, the senior partner of the Coalition was the Conservatives

Despite the combined vote share for the two main parties declining, their seat share is unaffected.

This suggests elections under FPTP are simply a binary choice.

This reduces voter choice, undermining levels of representation, limiting pluralism

lack of choice for the electorate leads to evidence of “tactical voting”.  Voters choose the “least bad” option, rather their preferred candidate, “vote-lending”.  This is referred to as “negative voting” – voting against, rather than for a candidate.   This undermines democratic representation.

Maidenhead in 2024 - Labour and Green voters voted tactically for the Liberal Democrats to provide the best chance of removing the Conservative MP

Critics argue that a lack of choice leads to a decline in turnout - made worse by the two main parties converging towards centrist policies to attract “swing” voters. - may have led to low turnout in recent years 2024- 59%

FPTP produces a clear winner, with single-party majority government

. This provides clear lines of accountability; stabilises UK politics by bringing certainty in times of political crises.

Governments can make genuine change and deliver on manifesto commitments.

During the time a majority government is in power (“elective dictatorship”), the opposition feels powerless…

…BUT they also know when they return to power, they too will have control of the Commons.  They can reverse some or all of the previous policies.

-Lab raised debate of electoral reform in 95 but dropped it quickly after their landslide victory in 97 with maj of 179 seats with 43% .allowed them to pursue HRA 1998 and Devolution, and overturn Section 28

The mean average majority in the last 40 years is 80 seats.

This would NOT occur under a fully proportional system  - no party since 1945 has received 50% of the vote

This means, FPTP allows the new governments to form quickly, power to transfer smoothly and efficiently  - helps stabilised democracy and the financial markets

• coalitions unstable and lead to breakdown of relations in partners seen in Italy - 25 PMs in 40yrs