Positives and Negatives of the UK Electoral System - Term Paper Example

Teacher December 2007 Positives and Negatives of the UK Electoral System The electoral system used by the United Kingdom is one that has far-reaching influence; Commonwealth countries have adapted this basic system for their own electoral purposes and therefore have taken on the integral advantages and flaws inherent in the system. Like most democratic systems, the UK general electoral process was designed to benefit voters however there are several aspects of the system that are either a constant source of criticism or that might be seen as detrimental depending on your point of view. In particular, the controversial aspects of the UK general election system are the first-past-the-post voting process, the timing of general elections and the fact that a Prime Minister whose party has lost majority status might attempt to remain the national leader; the most positive aspects are the theoretical involvement of every citizen of voting age and the regularity in which elections must legally be held. The premise of the general electoral system is fully democratic and meant to benefit the voters over the ambitions of politicians. There are many legal checks put in place to ensure that the will of the voters is carried out; the problem is that interpretation of voter will is often ambiguous. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the electoral system is known as first-past-the-post voting (or the plurality system); this is where the candidate or party with more votes than anyone else is given the leadership position (Judge 185). During a general election, Members of Parliament (MP) are elected from each established riding to occupy the House of Commons; the political party with the most MPs elected will take control of the federal government and be responsible for all federal legislation. What concerns many voters is that given the first-past-the-post method of voting, a very large percentage of voters can be misrepresented by the outcome of their local elections. If a high percentage of voters vote for the a losing party in their riding and this happens all over the country, the representation of political parties within the House of Commons can be very different than the actual percentage of votes that went to each party. Other countries, like France, have tried to deal with this issue by using a two-step plurality system that takes the two highest vote receivers from the preliminary round of voting and holds another round with only these two. In the UK, the concern that actual voting percentages are misrepresented in Parliament persists. Where the existing government is concerned, one of the primary negative aspects of electoral process includes the fact that the government is allowed to call an election at a time that best suits the party (Ware 300). Control of when the general election is held gives the current government the upper hand in terms of public opinion; politicians within the government can watch the trend of party popularity and be sure to schedule elections during a time when the government is viewed in its best light by the voting public, or when opposition parties are in disarray. Although the ability of the government to call its own election time was done on the premise that it would give them enough time to complete current projects and properly prepare for an election, the fact is that the privilege is used to the advantage of the current government so that it might keep its position. When the votes from a general election have been counted and the current Prime Minister discovers that his or her political party has not had the most MPs elected into Parliament, it is assumed that the Prime Minister in question will submit a resignation to the Monarch. If, however, he or she feels that the current government agenda might be supported by the newly elected MPs in Parliament, the option exists for the Prime Minister to deliver the Queen's Speech and ask for a vote of confidence from the House of Commons (Klug et al 77-79). The Queen's Speech is always delivered before the new term of Parliament begins, and it outlines the agenda for the federal government over the next five years. The Speech is then subject to a vote of confidence from the House of Commons, and if it is accepted the Prime Minister can receive permission to form the government despite the lack of votes from the public. The positive aspects of the UK general electoral system are those that are most rooted in the ideals of a truly democratic system: the involvement of every voting citizen in the electoral process, and the regularity in which general elections must be held. The most fundamental aspect of a democratic system, and therefore of the UK general electoral process, is the participation of the voting public in the overall outcome. This means that ideally every UK citizen of voting age should participate in the general election; this is not the case, however the ability of every citizen over the age of 18 to actually vote in the election is the major success for democracy. Another major positive factor in the UK electoral process is the fact that by law, the current government cannot indefinitely remain in power. Although the government does have control over when the general election will take place, it only has a five year span in which to complete its agenda and call people in to the polls. No matter what, the federal government cannot stay in power for more than five years without allowing the public to vote, which helps to ensure that Britons are being properly represented by their government (Weir and Beetham 490). The UK federal electoral process is based on basic democratic principles that include the right of the public to vote for its own government and regularly reconsider the progress of that government; the drawbacks of the system come from legislation that is more suited to the needs of the existing government itself as well as a flawed first-past-the-post voting system. Overall the British electoral system is dedicated to its fundamental democratic principles; in theory the will of the people is represented, however there are a few changes that could be made to ensure that this is really the case. Works Cited Judge, David. Representation: Theory and Practice in Britain. London: Routledge, 1999. Ware, Alan. Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Klug, Francesca, Weir, Stuart and Keir Starmer. The Three Pillars of Liberty: Political Rights and Freedoms in the United Kingdom. New York: Routledge, 1996. Weird, Stuart and David Beetham. Political Power and Democratic Control in Britain: The Democratic Audit of the United Kingdom. London: Routledge, 1999. Read More