Page last edited:24/01/2019
Comparing First Past the Post and Proportional Electoral Systems
Click here for my document on different electoral systems which now contains several new links .
Click here for BBC on alternative electoral systems and here for proposals for referendum on voting systems
Click here for Guardian coverage of estimates of outcomes of the 2010 General Election under alternative electoral systems
Clickhere for the Electoral Reform Society Home Page and herefor “PR Myths and here for information on AVand here for guides to different types of electoral system from the Electoral Reform Society which, of course, campaigns for the reform of the existing First Past the Post electoral system.
Click here for a neat graphic explanation of the mechanics of FPTP, AV, AV+ and STV from the Guardian.
Click here for detailed BBC coverage of the AV Referendum
Click here for brief explanations of alternative electoral systems from the Electoral Commission
Click here for brief Guardian explanation of strengths and weaknesses of alternative electoral systems
New Links on the implications of the 2015 General Election for the Electoral reform debate have been added below. [June 2015]
The UK First Past the Post Electoral System: Arguments used in favour
Elections have several functions: in particular it might be argued that they are more about choosing a government than about ensuring absolutely fair representation.
Under FPTP electoral systems single party stable governments with sufficient House of Commons majorities have usually been elected although there have been exceptions, for example in 1964-66, in 1974-79 and most especially in 2010 when the General Election resulted in a Hung Parliament and the formation of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition.However in countries using PR general elections more often result in Hung Parliaments and Coalition Governments which may be unstable resulting in frequent changes of government.
Click here for UK General Election results 1945-2005
Click here for the UK General Election Result of 2010
Following general elections in the UK single party majority governments are quickly formed. In countries using PR it may take several weeks before a governing coalition can be formed and even then it may not last long.
Particularly in crisis situations single party majority government elected via FPTP can take decisive action more quickly. Conservative opponents of PR might argue that a coalition government would have been unable to take decisive action in response to the Argentinean invasion of the Falklands. However this assumes that decisive action is the right action. We had coalition government in the 2ndWorld War and what about Iraq?
It is argued that general elections held under the FPTP system result in the election of single party majority governments which can be held responsible and accountable for their policies at subsequent general elections. However, under PR each party in a coalition government may seek to take the credit for successes and to blame failures on the coalition partner. In this way the responsibility and accountability of the government as a whole is undermined.
Under FPTP smaller parties secure limited or zero representation in Parliament and there is usually single party majority government. Under PR there may be a coalition which increases the powers of a small party while excluding a large party from power.
FPTP makes the election of “extremist” parties such as fascist parties very unlikely whereas PR makes it more likely. It is undesirable to do anything that aids the election of fascist parties.
FPTP is easy to understand: voters can see easily how their vote affects the outcome of the general election. If enough people vote Conservative they will form a government. However under PR there may be a Cons-Lib coalition which many Conservative voters did not necessarily want. Also voters may disapprove of the terms of the coalition which will be determined after the general election.
Under FPTP constituencies are relatively small and there is one MP per constituency. This means that almost everyone will know who “their“MP is and can easily contact him/her when the need arises. However supporters of PR dispute this view of the MP –constituency link as we shall see in the next section.
It is argued that the presence of a strong MP-constituency link will help to protect rebel or dissident MPs who come under pressure from the party whips: e.g. Tory MPs who rebelled against the Maatstricht Treaty of Labour MPs who rebelled against the Iraq war.
Under Pr there will be larger multi-member constituencies: e.g.Norfolk could be one constituency returning 7 MPs rather than the current situation where there are two Norwich constituencies, a Yarmouth constituency and at present 4 individual Norfolk constituencies.[North Norfolk, North-West Norfolk, South Norfolk, South-West Norfolk]
Under FPTP it is relatively easy to vote out an unpopular MP. However some forms of PR are based on the party list system which means that an unpopular MP may be voted out of a constituency but nevertheless retains a seat because s/he is high up on the Party list.
Proportional Representation: Arguments used in favour
It is fairer. There is a much closer relationship between the % of votes gained in general elections and % of seats won in the House of Commons. This has clearly not been the case under FPTP especially from the 1970s onwards. Under FPTP there have been occasions when the party securing most General election votes lost the election. When?
Percentages of UK Votes Cast and Commons Seats Gained 1997-2015
Vote % 1997 / Seat % 1997 / Vote % 2001 / Seat % 2001 / Vote% 2005 / Seat % 2005 / Vote % 2010 / Seat % 2010 / Vote%2015 / Seat % 2015 / Seat No 2015 / Seat Change 2010-2015
Cons / 30.7 / 25.0 / 31.7 / 25.2 / 32.3 / 30.5 / 36.1 / 47.0 / 36.9 / 50.9 / 331 / +24
Lab / 43.4 / 63.4 / 40.7 / 62.7 / 35.2 / 55.1 / 29.0 / 39.8 / 30.4 / 33.7 / 232 / -26
LibDem / 16.8 / 7.0 / 18.3 / 7.9 / 22.0 / 9.6 / 23.0 / 8.8 / 7.9 / 1.2 / 8 / -49
UKIP / 12.6 / 0.2 / 1 / +1
Greens / 3.8 / 0.2 / 1 / 0
SNP / 4.7 / 8.6 / 56 / +50
PC / 0.6 / 0.5 / 3 / 0
Additions June 2015
It is very important to note that the in the 2015 General Election the relationships between the percentages of the votes cast and the perecentages of seats gained by the political parties were particularly disproportionate. Notice for example that the percentages of votes and seats won by UKIP, the Greens and the SNP have a significant bearing on the debate around Electoral Reform.
Click here for a recent Electoral Reform Society pamphlet illustrating these disproportionalities [and for votes for Northern Irish parties not included in above table]
Click here for BBC coverage of the Electoral Reform Society pamphlet
Click here for an Observer article by Andrew Rawnsley on this issue
Under FPTP many Mps are elected to Parliament with less than 50% of the actual vote and far less than 50% of the potential vote. This may appear to be unfair and may undermine their legitimacy. Explain legitimacy.
Individuals are less likely to feel that their votes are being wasted. Under FPTP individuals voting Liberal democrat in most seats and individuals voting Labour in safe Conservative seats and Conservative in safe Labour seats may all feel that their votes are wasted Under PR their votes can be made to count. How?
It is claimed that the FPTP electoral system is a major cause of low electoral turnout but it is not the only cause. What other causes exist?
Under PR there would be no need for negative tactical voting. You could vote positively for your preferred party knowing that your vote would count.
FPTP may result in the existence of electoral deserts: e.g. in 1983 Labour gained very few Southern seats outside London and the Conservatives since 1997 have gained very few seats in the large Northern cities, Wales and Scotland. Thisneeds some further explanation.
Supporters of PR argue that the existence of multi-member constituencies means that voters have more choice in that they can vote within parties as well as between them. For example; they can choose between more and less radical Labour candidates as well as between Labour and Conservative candidates. Also the existence of multi-member constituencies means that a constituent can contact a representative from his/her preferred party whereas in single member constituencies the representative will obviously be a representative of one party only.
Under FPTP the result of the general election is decided by the results in a relatively small number of marginal constituencies which may change hands and the parties spend lots of time and money trying to win these marginal seats. Meanwhile they may spend little time considering the views of voters living in safe seats because the results in these seats are a foregone conclusion.
It is desirable that minor parties are not discriminated against as they are under FPTP.
- The Liberal Democrats are a significant national party with credible ideas across the whole spectrum of politics.
- The Greens articulate vital environmental concerns
- UKIP could challenge the unaccountability of the European Commission
- Fascist parties should be given the freedom to demonstrate how ludicrous their ideas are…on the basis that good ideas will drive out bad?
It was argued especially in the 1980s that the UK political system was weakened as a result of the growth of adversarial politics: labour had moved Left and the Conservatives had moved Right. There was argument for argument’s sake rather than attempts to seek agreement and the likelihood of damaging policy reversals if there was a change of government. PR would lead to coalition government which would bring both parties toward the centre ground in order to gain Liberal Democrat support in a coalition. Adversarial politics would be much reduced.
However the electoral system is not the only factor making for adversarial politics; its extent may have overstated and its impact on the economy may have been limited .All of this needs further discussion.
PR reduces the likelihood of One Party dominance of government[sometimes described as Elective Dictatorship]. With PR Mrs Thatcher may have been unable to implement the Thatcherite agenda. Would Tony Blair have been unable to take us to war in Iraq? On this view coalition government is not weak government but preferable to Elective Dictatorship.
It appears that PR generates greater social diversity among MPs…this tends to result in greater representation by women and ethnic minority members. For example the representation of women is especially high in Sweden, Denmark and Finland [all PR] and especially low in Canada, UK, USA [all FPTP]. However the representation of women is also especially low in Northern Ireland and the IrishRepublic both of which have PR so cultural issues are also involved.
.