'First Past the Post' is a clear, democratic voting system that really holds politicians accountable16/11/2016 The right for the people to choose who rules them has been a controversy for thousands of years. Not only the right to vote, but how votes are counted and what they actually mean. Hundreds of different voting systems are used around the world, in countries lucky enough to be democratic. From local council elections all the way to national Presidential elections, the most logical and democratic voting system is essential for people to feel enfranchised and part of the way things are managed. The UK has used the 'First Past the Post' system (which I'll abbreviate to FPTP for conciseness) for many years, but there have been debates and issues raised about changing the system, to, apparently, make more votes count. Most recently, in 2011, a referendum was held on whether the voting system should change from FPTP to the Alternative Vote, thankfully rejected by 2 to 1. However, many political parties, including the Greens, Liberal Democrats and even UKIP, still support the idea of electoral reform, specifically Proportion Representation. So, what are these different voting methods? Would they work? And would they help to enfranchise so many British voters feeling disenfranchised for a number of reasons?
In my view, FPTP is the best, most effective voting system of people having the ability to elect a strong, stable Government, but perhaps more importantly, the ability to throw out a Government not doing its job well. In the 1997 election, anger and discontent with nearly 2 decades of Tory rule allowed Labour to gain over 100 seats from the Conservatives and form a Government with a huge majority. The election clearly reflected the mood of the people. In contrast, the 1979 election allowed Mrs Thatcher to gain a 40 seat majority when people no longer wanted a Labour government. In both these cases, and many others, secure Governments have been elected, with majorities high enough to pass through legislative into law. There have been a minute number of occasions when no party has received a majority. FPTP also gives an opposition enough seats to properly scrutinize the Government's work and present itself as an alternative government, strengthening democracy. In many other countries, with many different voting systems, no party ever receives a majority, meaning coalitions and weak, unaccountable governments have to be formed. The French voting system for the Presidency is the Two-round system. This is where a voter casts a single vote for their chosen candidates. If no candidate received an absolute majority, all but the top 2 candidates are eliminated and the final 2 stand again. For the the lower house - The National Assembly, candidates who received under 12.5% are eliminated and remaining candidates stand again. The system can result in the National Assembly having very small majorities and often coalitions of parties. In the 2002 French Presidential election, the Two-round system left the centre right and far right as the final 2 candidates in the 2nd round of voting. This meant Socialists told their supporters to vote for the centre right candidate to stop the far right. While this tactical voting can occur in the UK, it wouldn't be to the same extent as possible can vote for whoever they like in FPTP, rather than just 2. The two-round system can also turn voting into more of a game, with voters having the ability to change their mind from the 1st ballot to the 2nd, with some having no incentive to vote if their candidate has been eliminated. The turnout is lower on average than the UK FPTP, with 55% of people going to vote in the 2012 elections, in comparison to 65% in the 2010 UK general election. The cost is far higher with people having to go to the polls twice, which can be extremely disruptive. The Spanish voting system for the Senate is the limited voting system, where electors have fewer votes than there are positions available. Relevant positions are awarded to candidates who receive the most votes. This system can lead to disproportional outcomes; the votes an elector has, the more disproportional the result will be. Along with proportional representation, these systems have lead to one of the most fragmented Spanish parliaments in history, with parties nearly always in coalition. As I've previously mentioned, regular coalition governments reduce the true accountability at the ballot box, as at least one of the parties involved usually serves as the next Government. The Alternative Vote, which was offered in a referendum and firmly rejected, involves voters ranking their candidates in order of preference. If a candidate secures more than half the vote, they win. However if no candidate secures a majority, the candidate in last place is eliminated and votes are recounted. The NOtoAV campaign suggested that AV could cost a huge amount of money with potential electronic voting. In the event of landslides, AV could be hugely disproportional, even more than FPTP is accused of being. A voting system that asks voters to rank candidates could be seen as confusing and potentially lead to 'Donkey voting' where voters vote for candidates in the order they appear on the ballot. Not the best system, clearly. These are just a few of the voting systems all across the world, each with their own benefits and faults that ultimately explain why I don't think they should be adopted in the UK. However, opposition to other voting systems by itself doesn't explain the excellence of FPTP. FPTP gives a clear choice for 2 parties, which is opposed by many smaller UK parties. However, most of the minor parties usually represent just factions of the 2 major parties. The Greens are the environmental, left section of the Labour Party, UKIP the eurosceptic, socially conservative right faction of the Conservative party. Compared to many complex systems where seats have to be taken away if a party receives a certain of votes and then divided by a demoni........confused? FPTP is utterly simple. A valid vote requires only one mark beside the name or symbol of one candidate. Thanks to FPTP, a clear connection between a small constituency and a representative specifically working for that area is made. Accountability is regional and geographic, meaning voters choose between people rather than just between parties. Voters can assess the performance of individual candidates rather than just having to accept a list of candidates presented by a party. All these advantages to me, clearly outweighs any disproportion and other complex, unworkable systems. I intend to write about voting many more times in the future after conducting more research and analysis. After all, it is one of our most important rights. But until I discover a system more effective and directly accountable, my preferred voting system will remain as FPTP.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|