Key Features of FPTP

Two party systems FPTP tends to foster a two-party system in which two major parties compete for office. This has reverted the bigger parties from splitting up into smaller factions – like when the Labour arty went through difficulties over the past year there was a suggestion that the two sides may break apart, but the reality of the voting system put them off – because they knew it would be difficult to win seats.

However, in recent years we have seen the development of a more multi party system, with smaller parties getting more votes. In 2010, the Conservatives and Labour together received only 65% of the vote -which is a postwar low. There have been varying levels of success for the smaller parties. For UKIP FPTP meant that despite winning 12.5% of the vote in 2015 they only won one seat. UKIP came second in 120 seats. However the SNP managed to win 56 seats in 2015 with only 4.7% of the national vote (this worked out as 50% of the vote in Scotland).

Winner’s Bonus FPTP tends to exaggerate the performance of the most popular party, which can produce a landslide effect. A relatively small lead over the second placed party is often translated into a substantial lead in parliamentary seats. They may have only a few votes ore in each constituency – yet they will still end up with many more seats.

Discrimination against smaller parties FPTP discriminates against third parties and smaller parties whose support is not concentrated in particular regions. Smaller parties are disadvantaged by: Mechanics. FPTP makes it more difficult for smaller parties to win seats. There are no rewards for coming second. Psychology. Smaller parties have a credibility problem because voters believe that a vote for them is a “wasted vote”.

Single Party Government FPTP tends to produce single-party majority governments with working parliamentary majorities. Coalition governments and minority governments are relatively rare at Westminster – thought in 2010 we had a coalition and 2017 we have a minority government.

Arguments in favour of FPTP

Simplicity It is easy to understand and to operate. A key principle of democracy should be that the system used to elect representatives should be clear and easy to understand for the electors – this makes it more transparent.

Clear outcome In the past FPTP has tended to produce a result where there is a clear winning party. Usually the party that has the most votes is the party that forms the government.

Strong and Stable government Voters are given a choice between parties and their manifestos, which means that the winning party has a democratic mandate to carry out their policies. Strong governments are able to act decisively in times of crisis.

Effective representation As there are single member constituencies there is a clear link between voters and their elected representatives.

Keeps out extremist parties Parties on the far right and left have not prospered in the UK, in part because FPTP makes it difficult for them to win seats at Westminster.

Arguments against the FPTP system

Disproportional Outcomes The number of parliamentary seats won by parties at a general election does not reflect accurately the share of the vote they achieved The two main parties win more seats than their votes merit Third parties whose votes are spread thinly are significantly under-represented in parliament Since 1945, the party coming second in the popular vote has twice won more seats than its opponent. In 1951, the Conservatives won more seats than Labour despite winning fewer votes, while in Feb 1974, Labour won more seats and the Cons won more votes.

Plurality rather than majority support Victorious candidates do not need to secure a majority of votes cast. In 2010 two thirds of MPs did not secure more than half of the votes in their seat. In 2005, Labour won a majority with only 35% of the vote.

Votes are of unequal value FPTP does not meet the “one person, one vote, one value” principle. Differences in constituency size, and whether a seat is a safe seat or a marginal seat means that votes in certain constituencies may have more effect over the final result than elsewhere.

Limited Choice Voters are denied an effective choice because only one candidate stands for each party. Voters whose chosen candidate is unlikely to win may be forced to vote tactically . A tactical vote is when a voter doesn’t; vote for their preferred candidate – but rather the one that they think is most likely to beat the party that they most dislike.

Divisive Politics FPTP encourages the two. Party competitive system, rather than a more consensual political system where parties have to work together in coalition governments – some people would argue that this is a more civilised and grown up way of doing politics.

FPTP no longer does what it is supposed to. Professor John Curtice -the UK’s most famous Psephologist argues that FPTP no longer does what it is supposed to do. FPTP is less effective in persuading people not to vote for smaller parties – UKIP, the SNP and Greens all got large number of votes in 2015. Even after 2017 there are still a large number of seats held by smaller parties. Regional differences between parties are more pronounced - this makes it more difficult for one party to win a parliamentary majority. In 2015 and 2017 different parties topped the poll in each of the different countries of the UK.