The British Electoral System - Case Study Example

Running Head: BRITISH ELECTORAL SYSTEM To What Extent Does The British Electoral System Effect The British Political System? [Autho’s [Institution’s Name] To What Extent Does The British Electoral System Effect The British Political System? Introduction The electoral system of any state is set of rules that allow the voting franchise to choose who will fill governmental office. This set of rules shows how votes are translated into representatives. The British government, like almost all other modern democracies is said to be a representative government. At the general election voters select their favoured representative to sit in government for their constituency. These representatives then take part in the business of government and make the decisions of behalf of the people. For this form of government to be democratic it is vital that the electoral system produces representatives that actually reflect the consensus choice of the public. A system of simple plurality or ‘First Past the Post’ [FPTP] as it is more commonly known has long been in place in Britain. Its advantages are clear. FPTP is a process renowned for its ease of understanding, as well as its ability to produce strong stable government. However it is not without its critics, who deem it to be unfair, and a disproportional system as ‘The share of seat does not reflect the share of votes, and the share of seats does not reflect the share of votes’. (Colin, 2007) Denver (2003) argues that FPTP is a system of majority not plurality. Rapid changes have taken place since 1997 when Labour recaptured power from the Conservatives. These changes pose further questions about the intricate workings of the current electoral system and there is ongoing analysis of whether further change should be introduced. To this end I hope to thoroughly evaluate the current electoral system, and establish whether this model should remain in place or whether recent calls for reform are merited. The actual operation of FPTP is so simple that it requires little explanation. Six hundred and fifty nine candidates run for election. Voters mark their preferred choice with an X. The candidate with more votes than any other gains a seat. The underlying principles of FPTP are that; it’s a simply electoral system, easy for voters to understand, and easy to tally votes. Due to its definitive yes or no nature it also in theory produces clear and stable governments. Coalitions do not work under FPTP and so it operates best in party system. Britain has evolved into almost a two party system, as result of the Liberal Democrats victimisation under the system. (Dennis, 2006) Nonetheless the system is inextricably based upon simplicity and is more straightforward than the ordinal ballots employed under the system of STV (as used in Northern Ireland) This is an important feature in an age where voting apathy and declining partisanship are just some of the challenges facing those running for office. It is also a quick and easy method of voting as voters simply mark an X beside the candidate they wish to choose. This is in contrast with the Additional Member System (AMS) in the Scottish parliament, which is understood by approx. 90% of voters, although many more found it difficult to explain how the system actually worked according to opinion polls. (Denver, 2003) A second positive feature of FPTP is its ability to produce strong government. Single parties usually have majority control of the assembly, this makes for strong and effective government. Also the government, which is formed, has a clear mandate from the electorate, and the single party government rarely collapses, as they are not casualties of disunity and internal friction. Defenders of FPTP ague that the ‘Cube Rule’ has a built in mechanism to produce single party parliamentary majorities In defence of the system Farrell cites an argument by Butler that ‘The British electoral system is not a gamble….The theoretical possibility of quite haphazard results arising from any given division of votes is undeniable; the practical improbability is so great under present conditions that it need not be considered’. Denver however contests the stance of the ‘Cube Rule’. He believes that the Cube Rule in fact illustrates one of the negative aspects of the system and produces huge disproportionality between votes and seats. He challenges the integral aspect of the Cube Rule, saying that in a situation with a 100 votes 60% of votes received leads to 77 seats gained whereas, 40% of votes received leads to 23 seats being gained. Butler said this however in 1963, forty years on we are living in an ever changing political environment and one which faces greater threats from radical independent groups. Burnley’s council in Lancashire would dispute Butler’s theory as several members of the extreme right wing British National Party (BNP) are gaining huge support in local elections. Critics of FPTP argue that the had France operated under FPTP; Le Pen would have been 2.7% away from victory. One positive advantage of FPTP is that it harbours a close relationship between MP’s and constituents, ensuring that all requisite constituency duties are carried out. It also offers the electorate a clear choice between potential parties of government. So say those commentators who are pro-FPTP. Critics refute the fact that it gives the electorate a choice. They argue that that the current system in fact distorts electoral preferences by under-representing the smallest parties and those with the third party effect – that is those parties whose support is geographically evenly distributed. The study of electoral reform has found that member-voter linkages are stronger in single member than in pure multi member districts. FPTP is a double-edged sword, the benefits if simplicity of the system can at times, be at the cost of fairness to the smaller parties. Alternatively the fact that smaller parties far greater challenges under the system means that it is more difficult for small radical parties to be elected under the system. ‘Compared to PR, plurality favours the two largest parties and heavily penalises third and fourth parties unless their support is regionally concentrated; examples being, SNP & Plaid Cymru…….In addition the system often rewards >>bonus seats Read More