Electoral systems - Essays plans

USING THE SOURCE , EVALUATE THE IMPACT OD FPTP IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY - POINT 1

Point 1: Disproportionate Outcomes

FPTP leads to governments formed with minority support.
(E.g. Labour 2005: 35.2% vote, full majority)
*(Source: Lucas – “winner-takes-all approach”)

• Counter: Disproportion enables stable governance and mandate delivery.
  *(E.g. Tories 2019: 43.6% vote → Brexit action)
  (Source: Double – “strong and stable government”)
  

USING THE SOURCE , EVALUATE THE IMPACT OD FPTP IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY - POINT 2

Point 2: Under-Representation of Smaller Parties

• FPTP marginalises parties with broad but thin support.
  (E.g. UKIP 2015: 3.9M votes, 1 seat)
  *(Source: Lucas – PR would reflect “modern Britain”)
  Counter: Prevents fringe/extremist parties from gaining seats.
  (E.g. BNP votes, 0 seats)
  (Source: Double – FPTP “keeps out extremists”)

USING THE SOURCE , EVALUATE THE IMPACT OD FPTP IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY - POINT 1

Point 3: Adversarial Politics, Little Consensus

• Majorities lead to swings in policy, little cooperation.
  (E.g. 2010 coalition vs. 2015 majority shift)
  *(Source: Lucas – “negates need for cooperation”)
  Counter: Offers voters a clear, simple choice.
  (E.g. Strong two-party tradition since 1945)
  (Source: Double – “clear and easy to understand”)

USING THE SOURCE , EVALUATE THE IMPACT OD FPTP IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY - POINT 1

Point 4: Wasted Votes and Safe Seats

• Votes in safe seats rarely affect outcomes, reducing engagement.
  (E.g. 22M wasted votes in 2015)
  *(Source: Lucas – hard to vote in “safe seats”)
  Counter: Ensures strong MP–constituent accountability.
  (E.g. MPs known locally, hold surgeries)
  (Source: Double – “direct link between MP and constituency”)