PROGRAMME 1

Background information

The British electoral system
Britain's electoral system for the Westminster Parliament is about the simplest imaginable. 'First-past-the-post' (FPTP) is termed a plurality system because the candidate with the most votes (a plurality) wins the seat. This is as opposed to a majority system, where a candidate would need an outright majority – over 50% – to win. No majority is required in FPTP. Voters are offered one candidate per party for their constituency, and may put a cross against one candidate only. In the EU, Britain is the only country to use FPTP. Other countries' systems are more inclusive, more proportionally representative, or both.

Some arguments against FPTP

• In producing single party governments FPTP dramatically exaggerates the parliamentary representation of the leading party (or parties). For example, in 2001 Labour won 62.5% of the seats (412 of 659) on the basis of the support of just 40.7% of the electorate (and just 24.2% of registered voters).
• Whilst this can be interpreted as producing 'strong' governments it can also increase the probability that governments will not be prepared to listen or compromise.
• FPTP can also produce an incentive not to vote. If your constituency is one that rarely, if ever, changes party hands, it can become difficult to see what the point of voting is. If you support the winning party, your individual vote is probably unnecessary. If you support another party you may feel your vote is wasted.
• FPTP actively excludes many minority parties from representation in Westminster. Some people see this as useful, as it excludes parties like the BNP, but it has also led to the exclusion of the Green Party at a time when environmental issues are of increasing popular concern.
• The current system has nothing to do with proportionality. At present, 47% of all MPs are elected by less than 50% of their constituency votes.

In defence of FPTP

• The system mostly produces single-party governments that have pledged to implement the policies listed in their manifestos.
• It is easy to hold a single party government to account on its manifesto pledges.
• FPTP gives us all our 'own' MP to represent our particular constituency.
• The victorious party can take quick action and govern 'strongly'.
• The fact that no majority is required is often seen as a major drawback for the FPTP system, but it does make a number of things simple – for instance, the ballot forms only need have the names of one candidate from each party – rather than a list of potentially hundreds of names.

Majoritarian systems
The system requiring least change would be the alternative vote (AV). With this system we could keep the single-member constituencies, but rank order candidates: 1,2,3, etc. If, after the count of first choices, no candidate has an overall majority (ie over 50%) the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated and his or her votes redistributed to the second choice candidate on those ballot papers. The winner would need over 50% of the vote, so this process would be repeated until an outright majority is established.

Proportional systems
Proportional representation is not an electoral system but rather one of the goals of many different systems. These systems allocate seats to parties, not candidates, according to the proportion of votes won.