The first-past-the-post system has often been argued about and criticized in the United Kingdom due to its bearing on democracy. Basically, the model involves challengers competing with one another to occupy the parliamentary seats by garnering the highest votes in each constituency. This method has historical origins and simplicity in its applicability, but it has come under fire since it may distort the real will of the electorate.
First-past-the-post is simple: each constituency returns one representative, and the party winning a majority of these seats forms the government. However, this can result in situations where a party achieves a majority in Parliament without gaining a majority of the popular vote nationwide. This discrepancy generates allegations of the inability of the system to authentically reflect the preferences of the electorate.
There is a huge geographical problem with votes and FPTP. They may well win decisively and sometimes capture a seat with a smaller proportion of the total vote in seats where this support is concentrated. On the other hand, in seats where their support has less concentration but remains reasonably sizable, they will just miss winning, which wastes the votes in terms of not contributing to representation. This geographical skew can result in a situation whereby parties with broad but thinly spread support across the country fight hard to transform this into seats.
The result of this distribution can be a parliament that does not represent the diverse political views of the electorate. What often happens under FPTP is that smaller parties or independent candidates have a hard time winning, even if they all get a large enough share of the national vote. This can create a feeling of disillusionment among voters—a situation in which one feels his or her vote does not translate into effective representation. This weakens trust in the democratic process.
More Read
In response to this sort of issue, electoral reform advocates for alternative systems like proportional representation. Under PR, a circle of seats in Parliament would be awarded according to the number of votes gained by each party across the country. The reasoning is that every vote will count and that Parliament will reflect much better the preferences of the electorate. According to the proponents of PR, it tends to improve the diversity of representation and minimize wasted votes, therefore making it a fair and inclusive democratic process.
The debate over the fairness and effectiveness of the electoral system continues to evolve in the UK. That being said, while there are some very strong points, first-past-the-post has serious flaws. The capacity of a party to form commanding majorities in Parliament with a minority of the popular vote raises questions at the most basic level of democratic legitimacy and representation.
The present electoral system has also been attacked for producing distorted forms of voting while avoiding the instability that has characterized so many of its continental neighbors. The greater the pressure that the movement for electoral reform mounts, the greater the challenge remains in reconciling historical tradition with imperatives for a more representative democracy. Finally, what seeks to be extracted from the ongoing debate on electoral reform is ensuring the needs of adequately representing and showcasing democratic principles in elections.
