Example UK Politics Essay: Discuss the view that the electoral system for Westminster should change to proportional representation?
In simple terms, a proportional representation system is one in which the proportion of seats allocated to a particular party is the same as the proportion of votes won by that party. Each vote, therefore, carries equal weight, and typically there is a need for a multi-member constituency. Elections for the House of Commons currently use the “winner take all” approach of First Past The Post, which has been criticised for failing to represent the views of significant minorities and preventing smaller parties from having much influence in Parliament, thus ensuring a continued two-party system. Proportional representation can take a number of forms (and is already used in some parts of the UK) e.g. Single Transferable Vote in the NI Assembly, Additional Member System in the Scottish Parliament, and the Closed Party List for elections to the European Parliament. It will be argued in this essay that whilst proportional representation may enhance some elements of representative democracy, it may actually lead to more fragmented and unstable government and is therefore not desirable in the UK’s Westminster elections.
One of the strongest arguments in favour of a move towards proportional representation is dissatisfaction with the current FPTP system. The FPTP system, because of single-member constituencies can result in the existence of so-called safe seats (estimated by the Electoral Reform Society to be 368 seats of the total 650 constituencies ahead of the 2015 General Election). Indeed, 225 constituencies have not changed hands since before 1950, despite big changes in cultural attitudes and the UK’s demography. In a safe seat, such as David Cameron’s Witney constituency which has been in Tory hands since 1910, any voters who identify with the non-majority party may feel that there is no chance of their view being represented, and this can in turn reduce voter turnout andpolitical participation (accentuated by voters who tend to identify with the dominant party in a particular safe seat and feel that there is no need to turn out at all because their chosen party will win regardless of their vote). However, there is actually scant evidence available to suggest that voter turnout is higher in proportional systems. In the UK, devolved elections typically have lower turnout despite using a range of proportional representation systems. The 2014 European elections only had a turnout of 35.6%, worse than the (still poor) turnout across Europe of 42.6%.
This situation may be worsened in a winner-take-all system as a result ofgerrymandering e.g. the controversy over the Boundary Commission’s recent review ofconstituency boundaries which seemed to protect Tory seats over Labour and Lib Dem seats. This said, previously safe Labour seats in Scotland were lost to the SNP in the 2015 General Election, showing that the FPTP system can lead to different outcomes if there is enough consensus amongst voters that a change is needed.
There are other valid reasons for moving away from FPTP and towards an alternative proportional system. Whilst safe seats are an issue at one end of the spectrum, at the other end is the concern that a “winner” can be produced with a tiny mandate e.g. the SDLP candidate for South Belfast winning with just 24.5% of the vote in 2015, and in total 8 MPs won seats having won less than 35% of the votes cast. Also, many parts of the country may become electoral deserts, in which some parties who feel that there is little chance of them winning decide against putting forward a candidate at all – thisreduces voter choice and undermines democracy. A proportional system would address these issues, and many politicians believe that some sort of reform to the electoral system is necessary.
As mentioned in the introduction, a range of proportional representation electoral systems are currently in use across the UK. The Closed Party List for elections of MEPs tothe European Parliament is arguably the most proportionally representative system of the methods used, and elects MEPs in 12 UK multi-party constituencies. In the 2014 European Election, UKIP won the popular vote in the UK with 26.6% of the vote (24 seats) – the first time that a party other than Labour or Conservatives have won a popular vote in the UK since 1906 (Labour won 24.4% and 20 seats, and the Conservatives 23.05% and 19 seats). This is evidence that, in multi-party large constituencies, smaller parties that represent the views of significant numbers of constituents can win a number of seats. One concern with the use of proportional representation as an electoral system is that it can allow more extremist parties to gain power, thus potentially destabilising the political system. However, in the 2014 European Parliament elections there were 20 parties that received some share of the vote but still not enough to award them seats – this included far-right parties such as the BNP and Britain First. It is true that this means some voters will not have their views represented, but when they are a tiny minority this is probably good in terms of preventing tyranny by the minority.
As mentioned earlier, turnout in this 2014 European election was low. One reason for this is that UK voters are used to the single-member constituencies used for Westminster, in which they have a named specific representative in the Commons who can address the interests of their constituents. PR systems weaken this link between constituents and their representative, arguably reducing the strength and quality of representative democracy in a particular area. For example, in multi-member constituencies, constituents may not know who to approach, and their representatives may not have good local knowledge if they are representing a much larger geographical area. The UK’s House of Commons has more representatives per person than in any other modern democracy, and a move to PR could weaken that important and unique link.
The inevitable result of using a more proportionally representative system for Westminster is the increased likelihood of coalition government. Coalition governments can sometimes take time to form e.g. it took around a week for Cameron and Clegg to form a government. In the meantime, there is effectively a power vacuum, and no Parliament – this reduces the quality of representation. Arguably a week is not a long time, but in some countries such as Germany and Greece, coalition governments take much longer to form. Furthermore, whilst coalition government can lead to greater compromise and conciliation between parties in relation to policy-making, it can also slow down the policy-making process if there are strong internal disagreements (e.g. in the Tory-Lib Dem coalition there were different views on electoral reform, university tuition fees, military intervention overseas and so on). This makes government less effective and reduces the desirability of proportional representation.
Coalition government also means that the governing group have no clear mandatebecause their combined policies, such as the Coalition Agreement, have not met with the direct approval of the electorate at the ballot box via a manifesto. Furthermore, the compromises reached between different parties may actually lead to voter anger if they feel that their views are even less likely to be represented e.g. the Lib Dem climbdown over the abolition of university tuition fees (a key manifesto pledge) leading to “punishment” of the Lib Dems at the 2015 General Election, effectively removing them almost completely from the Commons. This has resulted in instability in the political system at Westminster, with the Lib Dem’s position as 3rd most populous party being taken by the SNP, which only has Scottish interests at heart.
Overall, whilst the current FPTP system for Westminster elections certainly has its flaws, stable government and a close link between MPs and their constituents are key strengths that would be lost if the UK moved towards a more proportional system.
No comments:
Post a Comment