First Past the Post vs the Electoral Reform Society
First Past the Post is the second most popular voting system in the world. It used to be more widespread, but many countries that used to use it have adopted other systems. The reason is a growing criticism of First Past the Post in recent years, as many feel it is unfair and unfit for purpose.
A fundamental argument is that first Past the Post simply does not represent public opinion, because a party with a small percentage of the national vote can gain a large majority in government through the winning of constituencies. For example: Imagine three constituencies, Brighton north, Brighton south and Brighton central. Each has a population of 10 people. In Brighton North, six people vote for party A and four for party B. In Brighton South, the result is the same. In Brighton Central, 1 person votes for party A, and 9 vote for party B. This means that party A win two constituencies and have a majority in government, despite the fact that party B actually received four more votes and therefore has more overall public support. This is one argument against First Past the Post from the Electoral Reform Society; an independent campaigning organisation who's mission is to “champion the rights of voters and build a better democracy in Britain”. They research and publish findings relating to democracy and voting and they campaign for change in areas they feel require improvement, overhaul or threaten a fair democracy.
The Electoral Reform Society describes First Past the Post as “bad for voters, bad for government and bad for democracy.” They believe it is the very worst system for electing a representative government. Here are more of their arguments for why: > Since a single MP is voted in each constituency by majority, the actual number of votes they receive is irrelevant. All they need is to receive more votes than the other candidates. This means they could win a constituency with only very little support. > Since elections in the UK have become very much two party battle between the Conservatives and Labour, voters may be encouraged to vote tactically. This would mean voting against the candidate they most dislike rather than for the candidate they prefer. So I may vote for Party A to prevent Party B from winning, when in fact the party I really prefer is C, a minority party. > Many votes are considered wasted, as those for a candidate who does not win their constituency count for nothing. Also, votes for a winning candidate who could have won a majority with fewer votes might be considered wasted. For example, if I need 10 votes for a majority, but I receive 15, those extra five votes are useless. By this thinking, in the UK General Election of 2005, 52% of votes were cast for losing candidates and 18% were excess votes - a total of 70% wasted votes. > Voter choice is restricted as there can be only one constituency candidate per party. I may support a party but don't agree with every viewpoint of my local candidate for that party. Do I still vote for them? > The system creates a risk of Gerrymandering. This means a government may change constituency boundaries or conditions to maximise the number of votes in some, and to limit opposing votes to others. The diagram below shows how two sets of constituency boundaries around the same voters can produce radically different election results. On the left, the votes are even, but on the right the red votes have been restricted to just one constituency, meaning blue will win overall:
(Source: wikipedia.org) > In small constituencies, it is common that one party will retain strength and therefore security of a future vote. This may disillusion other voters in that constituency, and cause the party to neglect it when it comes to creating new policy, much of which will be targeted at garnering new support. > Likewise, constituencies that a political party feel they have no hope of gaining support from may become completely neglected by that party. > Politicians from a constituency where their party has no support may also move to another constituency where they can have greater influence. This and the two previous arguments show how people in these constituencies can lose representation in society, as parties are likely to focus only on 'swing' constituencies – those with votes who could vote either way. > Because a constituency's choice of candidates is restricted to one per party, representation of minorities and women suffers as the 'safest' looking candidates are the most likely to be offered a chance to stand for election. > First Past the Post usually ends up in a two party battle, which is the case in the UK. This severely restricts the chances of third and other minority parties. Other organisations have added further criticism to First Past the Post. For example, the Electoral Knowledge Network suggests that areas where one party is extremely dominant will exclude minorities from representation and reinforce the perception that politics is a battleground defined by who you are and where you live rather than what you believe in. They also say that when two similar parties compete under First Past the Post, votes may end up very split between them, giving a smaller and less popular party the chance to win. Support for First Past the Post Naturally, First Past the Post isn't without its supporters either. Here are some arguments for the current system: > It's simple to understand so doesn't alienate people. > It's easy to count and therefore results can be announced quickly. > Voters state clearly their single choice (although this is considered a negative aspect for those concerned about tactical voting and the lack of detail in a preference). > It tends to produce single party governments (rather than coalitions) which can pass legislation easily (although those who would like legislation to be passed only through broader cross-party support may see this as a threat). > It is likely to result in policies that aim to please as many people as possible. > It results in a strong opposition party which will have the coherence to critically 'check' the government and provide a realistic and full alternative. > It promotes a link between constituents and their representatives. For example, I may feel that the MP for my constituency is a direct link between my local community and parliament. The Alternative Vote The Electoral Reform Society is pushing for change in the voting system, namely a switch to the 'Alternative Vote'. This system allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than simply choosing one. It is currently employed in a few countries, including Australia and Fiji.
(Source: telegraph.co.uk) A referendum on changing to the Alternative Vote was held in the UK in 2011. It failed to get enough support, with 68% of the voters saying no and 32% saying yes. The Electoral Reform Society are clear that the 2011 vote against the Alternative Vote does not suggest that people support First Past the Post. They are continuing to build the case for change at Westminster. I will explore the Alternative Vote in detail in another post.