Proportional Representative System in the UK - Term Paper Example

Proportional Representative System in the UK Proportional representation refers to a wide array of electoral systemsin which parliamentary seats are apportioned according to the cast votes. In the UK, some form of this proportional representation has been practiced with devolution elections in Wales being a good example (Amy 22). Additionally, the London Mayoral elections have used form of election in the past. However, proportional representation has never been used in the national elections, in the UK, with pluralist elections being the mode of choice. Proportional representation has been used all over Europe in some form and has been a pet subject for the Liberal Democrats for a while, as well as gaining increasing support from the British public, beginning in the early seventies. The reason for this has been partly likened to the failure by the plural form of elections to produce a clear winner after the 1974 election, which saw the formation of a weak government without an outright majority (Amy 23). Additionally, the additional vote from a third party in the 70s has also acted to highlight the disproportionate and distorted nature of a pluralist voting system. This paper provides a discussion on the way proportional representative system is better than plurality system in the UK. The Labor government, in 1997, made a promise to hold a referendum as soon as it got into power that would vote on the issue of introducing a representative voting system. However, this referendum was continually delayed and dropped off the labor party agenda. Additionally, the amount of choice that the voter would be given could also be limited. This is because there is an argument that the Labor Party and the Tories stand to lose the most if any changes are effected to the pluralist electoral system, which explains their reluctance to pursue the issue (Amy 25). Had proportional representation been used during the elections of 1997, it is possible that the big Labor majority would have seen a reduction with major gains by the Liberal Democrats (Connolly 31). This would have seen a gain from the forty six seats they attained to as high as one hundred and six members of parliament. The Lib Dems got 16.8% of all the votes cast, but suffered when it came to actual seats at Westminster, gaining less than ten percent of the total seats. Proportional representation would have altered their standing and greatly reduced that of the Labor Party. A similar incident would have occurred in the elections of 2001, a result that intimates the fact that pluralist electoral models are unfair and have the potential to be undemocratic, i.e., the number of votes that are cast for the government are not proportional to that the government’s popularity with the UK public (Connolly 31). All proportional representation forms tend to possess similar basic merits. These merits include the fact that the system is more representative of the voting public’s wishes as expressed during the voting process (Connolly 35). In addition, fewer wasted votes encourage better participation in the election. The pluralist electoral model could lead to some voters avoiding the voting process because they perceive it as a wasted cause. Additionally, the minority parties could end up with fairer representation in Westminster. Independent candidates will also have more opportunities at being elected with only a single one, Martin Bell, winning a seat in parliament during the 1997 elections. The candidate lost the seat during the second attempt where he used the pluralist electoral route. Another advantage of PR is that it removes safe seats that are characterized by perennial low turnouts. If people feel that their vote counts, then they may be more encouraged to participate in the elections. Using the PR system, the voter also has an increased variety of choice as far as candidates are concerned. Finally, a pluralist system can be eliminated by a proportional representation system ending up with a system that is “pluralist”, which decreases the possibility of elective dictatorship (Connolly 37). The proportional representation electoral concept in voting systems is used for the election of a council or an assembly member. Proportional representation refers to proportionality between the numbers of seats that one party or a set of candidates win and the number of received votes (Williams 9). For instance, under his voting system, if thirty percent of the electorate comes out in support of a specific political party, it will result in approximately thirty percent of the seats in public going to that party. Proportional representation can act, as an alternative to pluralist electoral voting systems because the latter has the tendency to result in outcomes that are disproportionate with a clear bias towards the larger political groupings. Proportional representation tends to give life to numerous political parties and exists in various forms. In some cases, they are focused on allowing the voter to elect between single candidates with others focused on the attainment of a proportional representation for various political parties. There also exists a variation in the acquired degree of proportionality, which is determined by the precise formula that the system uses for the allocation of seats, the minimum threshold level for the election, and number of seats in the elected body or each constituency as a whole (Williams 11). One argument against the benefits of PR is that the system demands more knowledge of party manifestos and beliefs, as well a greater activity for the voters, such as ranking the candidates in their preferred order like in single TVS, which may act to prevent participation (Williams 14). On the other side, the voter may relish the opportunity to receive better information, as well as to have more choice. This may lead to an increase in choice. If an election comprises of more than 2 parties, then proportional allocation of parliamentary seats has the tendency to elect a hung parliament in which no party is able to garner more than fifty percent of the seats on offer. In the UK form of parliamentary government, the choice between proportional representation and pluralism, therefore, is presented as a choice between a fair reflection of cast votes, a majority government or a single party (Williams 14). This summary, however, is too simplistic. Proportional representation did produce a majority government in 1982, in Spain while the first pluralist elections of 1974 in the UK led to a hung parliament. The merits and demerits of a hung parliament are not clear. Hung parliaments in the post-war UK have been relatively unheard. Because of the nature of the British constitution, when it does happen, the rules are not certain as to the next step of action and who ought to be the PM, when that PM should be appointed, and when a fresh election needs to be called (Renwick 72). A hung parliament, where no single party attains the majority needed from the public does not have to end in a coalition government. More often in the UK, this result in a minority, single party rule with less than 50% of elective seats in the House of Commons. In February 1974, for example, the Labor party under the leadership of Harold Wilson continued over 8 months as a government of the minority, which boosted its popularity with rent freezes and pension increases, going on to call an election in 1974 that they won with a slight majority (Renwick 73). The Labor party had lost their majority via defeats in by-elections, which saw the Lib Dems enter a fifteen-month pact. The arrangement was an informal one, not a real coalition, as the Lib Dems had no representatives in the executive. Instead, the Lib Dems supported the Labor government in return for being consulted on policy issues. This government was able to push a number of contentious legislation through the house including the Race Relations Act and Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act, for example (Renwick 73). In that sense, it was not weak any more than majority governments would be considered as always strong. For example, by 1995, the government under John Major was not strong because of persistent opposition from its backbench MPs on such issues as VAT, family law and post office legislation. The Lib Dems are of the opinion that pluralist majority governments are usually weak since they rest on a minority vote, such as in 1997 and 2001, which lack the consent of the people, as well as lacking power as far as relations with pressure groups like trade unions ad business are concerned (Renwick 80). They prefer to call a hung parliament a balanced one and argue that a centrist coalition that leans towards proportional representation would curb elective dictatorship, promote greater national direction congruence and encourage moderate policies, which would be more efficient. The 70s and early 80s saw swings away from the Labor party policies to those of the Thatcher era that sought to remove all manner of policies that Harold Wilson had introduced (Renwick 80). Proportional representation would result in the minimization of these vast swings in policy. A hung parliament will lead to higher attendance of debates in the House of Commons this is as a result of the MPs’ harboring aspirations of climbing the party hierarchy; should be seen doing their tasks. Governments formed by a coalition have the capability of drawing on a wide array of talent with increased stability. Equally, pluralist models may be unstable if sudden policies are adopted (Farrell 55). For instance, John Major was forced to withdraw in 1992 from the ERM that made the Tories appear to be out of control as far as the financial events it was supposed to be handling as the governing party. This sort of incompetence only worked to benefit opposition parties. The case to be made against proportional representation is that the voters do not really vote for a coalition since no mandate for politics of compromise exists (Farrell 57). The coalition government could also offer disproportionate powers to the smaller parties and, therefore, become unrepresentative, just like the pluralist system. Additionally, there is no virtue that is obvious for centrism that could be viewed as stagnation. If the Lib Dems and Labor’s goal of a centrist permanent consensus and coalition were to be achieved, the result could be a new elective dictatorship (Farrell 57). However, given the above arguments, the chances for this happening are small in comparison to the obvious advantages of proportional representation. Works Cited Amy, Douglas. Behind the ballot box: a citizen's guide to voting systems.Westport : Praeger , 2012. Print. Connolly, William. Pluralism. Durham: Duke University Press, 2011. Print. Farrell, David. Electoral systems: a comparative introduction.New York: Palgrave, 2011. Print. Renwick, Alan.The politics of electoral reform : changing the rules of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 2012. Print. Williams, Andy. UK government & politics. Oxford : Heinemann, 2009. Print. Read More