FPTP positive impact on representative democracy?

Evaluate the extent to which the FPTP system has had a positive impact in terms of representative democracy. You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way. 30 marks.

Introduction

Define: FPTP is a plurality voting system used for UK general elections.

Debate: FPTP has advantages, such as producing stable governments, and its drawbacks, such as disproportionate outcomes and limited voter choice.

Direct: Ultimately, while FPTP offers significant benefits for stability and accountability, its drawbacks suggest its impact on representative democracy is mixed.

Point: FPTP often produces single-party majority governments, enabling stable governance and clear accountability.

Example: The 2019 general election resulted in a clear Conservative majority of 80 seats, providing stable leadership during the Brexit transition.

Explanation: Stable governments are essential for effective policymaking and accountability, ensuring citizens can hold a specific party responsible for decisions.

Evaluation: Stability sometimes comes at the cost of overrepresentation for winning parties, such as Cons gaining 43.6% of vote but 56% of seats, but the ability to deliver decisive governance supports representative democracy overall.

Link: By promoting stability and accountability, FPTP positively impacts representative democracy.

Point: FPTP often awards a large number of seats to a party with a minority of the vote share, distorting representation.

Example: In the 2024 general election, Labour won 34% of the vote but secured 63% of seats, while Reform UK won 14.3% of the vote but only 5 seats.

Explanation: This disproportionality means that smaller parties and their voters are underrepresented, undermining the democratic principle of fairness.

Evaluation: While disproportionality is a major flaw, it ensures fringe parties with extremist ideologies are less likely to gain power, arguably protecting democratic values.

Link: By failing to reflect voter preferences accurately, FPTP limits its ability to fully support representative democracy.

Point: Each MP represents a specific geographical area, fostering a close relationship between constituents and their representative.

Example: MPs like Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour MP for Tooting) are well-known for addressing local issues such as NHS funding and housing crises.

Explanation: This direct link allows citizens to feel represented on both local and national levels, bolstering trust in democracy.

Evaluation: While the constituency link is valuable, it can be undermined by safe seats, where MPs have less incentive to engage with constituents due to guaranteed victories.

Link: The constituency-based approach of FPTP strengthens local accountability and representation, a key feature of representative democracy.

Point: The system incentivises tactical voting and discourages support for smaller parties, limiting genuine voter expression.

Example: In the 2017 general election, many voters chose Labour or Conservative to prevent the other from winning, rather than supporting their preferred party (e.g., Green or Liberal Democrats).

Explanation: This "wasted vote" problem suppresses diversity in political representation and marginalises smaller parties, making the system less inclusive.

Evaluation: While limited choice is a weakness, it ensures that the two main parties remain dominant, creating clear policy alternatives for voters.

Link: The constraints on voter choice under FPTP weaken its ability to uphold representative democracy by reducing electoral inclusivity.