Homework - Yhyh PDF

Preview

Summary

Yhyh...

Description

'FPTP is a strong electoral system because it gives voters a choice' (25 marks) It is argued that First Past the Post (FPTP) is not a strong electoral system and rather gives voters a lack of choice due to its lack of proportionality where the number votes do not equal to the number of seats in Parliament. One key advantage of FPTP is that it is simple and easy to operate. All that is required is that an ‘X’ is placed in the box corresponding to the desired candidate; a clear and unambiguous choice is offered, causing little voter confusion. Each party puts forward one candidate and there is only one winner which can show it’s a strong system. Generally FPTP favours Parties who can concentrate their vote into certain voting districts this is because in doing it this way they win many seats and don’t waste votes in other areas this lead to criticism being seen seen in the 2015 General Election where it resulted in a Conservative majority government. The Conservatives polled at around 36%, and got 50% of seats in Parliament, whereas Labour polled at around 30% but only got 35% of seats in Parliament despite only polling 6 points behind. FPTP was equally, if not, more unfair to smaller parties such as KIP who, despite winning 12% of the vote, only got a measly 0.2% of seats which equaled to one MP. Representatives can get elected with small amounts of public support, as the size of the winning margin is irrelevant: what matters is only that they get more votes than other candidates which would be a disadvantage to this voting system another would be FPTP can severely restrict voter choice. Parties are not homogenous and do not speak with one unified voice. Parties are more coalitions of many different viewpoints. If the preferred-party candidate in a constituency has views with which a voter doesn’t agree, he or she doesn’t have a means of expressing that at the ballot box which links back to the question enhancing the lack of voter choice It is abundantly clear that FPTP is flawed and a weak electoral system. Its lack of proportionality ensures there is always a two-party system thus discriminating against the smaller parties and thus giving voters a lack of choice as this electoral system makes sure that it would either be the Tories (Conservatives) or Labour in power. It can be argued however this [the lack of proportionality] is a good thing as it ensures strong, stable governments are often elected meaning that a government elected will almost always have a majority. A proportional voting system would almost always result in coalitions and minority governments as seen through Scotland (which uses AMS) who is governed by the SP and Scottish Greens. This therefore could show that FPTP is a strong electoral system. However, FPTP has led to coalition governments such as the Tory-Lib Dem government in 2010 and the Tory-DUP government in 2017 therefore showing that FPTP is not always strong Another thing that makes this argument weak is that it fails to justify the lack of voter choice with FPTP as-compared to systems such as AMS who ensures voters can elect more than one representative whether it be from big political parties or small political parties. Therefore, FPTP is a weak electoral system and does not provide any choice to the electorate whatsoever....