• News

• Newcastle Courier Home
• Comment Home
• Features
  >
  • News
  • Photo Gallery
  • Events
  • Memberships
• Information

► ELECTORAL SYSTEMS - First past the post is getting negative press, but is it really that bad?

Author: Harriet King

The current voting system has been much criticised, but are there advantages in keeping first past the post?

The first past the post system that is currently in place in Britain may not be the fairest democratic system that there is. Indeed, it may not be truly democratic, as those who do not vote for the winner are not counted. It is the system that has kept the Liberal Democrats as very much the third party since they came into existence. But it is also the system that has kept parties such as the BNP, UKIP and, arguably, the British Communist Party on the periphery of Parliament, something which many individuals can only see as positive.

The Liberal Democrats wish to introduce Proportional Representation to Britain. This means that every vote is counted, and seats allocated according to the proportion of the vote each party receives. Every time the Lib Dems came third in an election therefore, they would receive some seats for that constituency, rather than none.

Their demand for Parliamentary reform is understandable. But what of the BNP? Without wishing to be disrespectful to other people’s views, the majority of individuals in this country would be terrified and angered by any increase in BNP power. At the minute, the First-Past-the-Post system means that even when they do receive votes, it is rarely enough to receive a majority, (with the exception of the recent European Elections), and keeps the number of seats held at a minimum.

 The introduction of Proportional Representation would drastically increase the number of seats available to them. In the 2005 election, the BNP received 0.5% of the vote but no seats. Under PR, they would have received four seats. Although this would result in a few purer form of democracy, I would rather keep our system, with all its flaws, than run the risk of the BNP having any power in Parliament.

A reform of the election system would not necessarily result in the introduction of Proportional Representation. Other options include the college system that is currently in place in the USA, where states are allocated a number of colleges according to their population, and the winner in the state elections receives all the college votes for that state. This is still not a fair democratic system. Is this better than the First-Past-the-Post, where we chose who and what party is representing us in the House?

 It allows the electorate to more directly influence who is leading their country, but in America, those surrounding the President do not have to be voted in before they can take power. If Gordon Brown loses his seat in Parliament he will not be able to be Prime Minister. His cabinet can only serve if elected in by the people.

Finally, with current debate about the potential issues of a hung Parliament, the case for First-Past-the-Post suddenly becomes stronger. First-Past-the-Post tends to produce strong governments, who are able to get things done, the main concern about the chance of a hung Parliament during a recession. Keeping First-Past-the-Post may not be the most fair, but it keeps Britain stronger.

Bookmark with:  Delicious Digg Facebook reddit StumbleUpon

ELECTORAL SYSTEMS - First past the post is getting negative press, but is it really that bad? Posts