is first past the post fit for purpose?
types of electoral systems:
majoritarian systems
winning candidate must secure an absolute majority (50%+1)
plurality systems
winner needs plurality of the votes cast = one more than nearest rival
first past the post is an example of this
proportional representation
covers many systems that produce a close fit between voters n seats although no system can deliver perfect proportionality
mixed system
combines elements of plurality/majoritarian w/ pr
comparing systems:
majoritarian | proportional representation |
|---|---|
candidate must secure an absolute majority/plurality of votes to win | candidates elected in multi-member constituencies |
candidates elected in single-member constituencies | electoral formulas used to allocate seats in legislative assembly |
outcome is not proportional - large parties take higher proportion of seats than their share of vote merits; small parties under-repped | outcome is proportional - close link between share of the vote n number of seats allocated |
systems tend to produce single-party governments with working parliamentary majorities | systems tend to produce coalition governments as no single party wins a majority of seats |
key features of first past the post:
constituency system
650 single-members parliamentary constituencies in the uk
aim is for a majority » form govt
single candidate selected
candidate’s name marked with an x on the ballot paper
each constituency returns a single candidates » ‘winner takes all’
winning candidate in a constituency needs only to achieve plurality of votes
possible for winning candidate to have fewer votes than the other candidates combined
safe seats: a constituency where it is unlikely the seat will change hands from one party to another at an election
SAFEST SEAT = liverpool walton, majority = 74.83%
marginal seats: a constituency where the results of past elections suggest that the result of an election will be close
the number of safe seats (seats won by over 50%) increased at the last gen election, from 21 to 35
safe seats | marginal seats |
|---|---|
parties pay little attention to them during the campaign | voters receive more attention and information |
MPs are less accountable because they have virtually no chance of losing their seat | voters are more valuable in these seats as they may directly influence the result |
voters feel their votes are wasted | the character and policies of the candidates become more important |
votes are effectively ‘not equal’ - votes in safe seats are worth less than those in marginals, where the impact may be greater | people are more likely to vote tactically when voting in a marginal constituency |
electoral reform society estimated that in 2015, there were 22mill votes wasted » safe constituency |
the key to winning under fptp is therefore voter concentration that is, enough to win you a seat comfortable, but not so comfortably that you pile up meaningless votes.