British Politics Shaped By The FPTP Electoral System - Essay Example

 British Politics Shaped By The FPTP Electoral System Introduction to First-Past-the-Post Electoral System British politics have a strong historical background that can be traced from the imperial powers to the modern times. Britain has undergone a systematic electoral reform since the 1800, allowing middle class men to vote, rural and urban workers and eventually permitting the suffrage to all males and females by the 1930s. Elections are no doubt central to the democracy purpose of Britain. Over the years, governments and political parties have placed motions to change the FPTP electoral system, but they have all failed. FPTP was introduced in the UK after the abolishment of the Limited vote seats and has since been used in the election of the members of parliament in Britain. According to Baston, “attempts of the parliament to change the system in the first half of the twentieth century were defeated” (2007, p. 7). As a result, most of the colonies of Britain especially those in Africa still inherited a similar electoral system, which has also persisted over the decades. However, recent attempts have been demonstrated by the Liberal Democrats since the 70s to replace FPTP with Proportional Representation (PR). FPTP has not only been beneficial to some parties and candidates, but has demonstrated some of its weaknesses, especially in delivery of fair representation, which all shape British politics to date. Shaping British Politics from the FPTP system 1. Majoritarian will British elections follow the plurality voting system. It is the responsibility of the people to vote for representatives of their constituency and will therefore elect a candidate of their choice from the competing political parties. There are approximately six hundred and fifty constituencies in the UK that have to be contested by the multiple parties in elections. Under the FPTP, political parties take time to invest and campaign for their candidates and parties, so as to influence the majority people to elect them. After the First World War, several changes in the electoral system of Britain occurred. The constituencies were divided into approximately equal proportions based on the population from which the FPTP electoral system would operate in. With the 1918 reform, additional groups of people such as the soldiers who had returned from war and the groups of women who had achieved the minimum property qualification (i.e. age 30) affected the size of the electorate. For the first time, the number of voters had almost tripled. Under the new FPTP system, each qualified voter from a constituency has been required to vote for a single candidate from a list given in the ballot paper. The assumption is that the candidate who gets most votes compared to other individual candidates wins the election to qualify for the representative in the constituency. This method has by far been the simplest and regarded as the voice of the majority. British governance and distribution of power back to the constituencies have always been under the influence of the majority people. Looking back to the elections after the 1918 reforms, politics in Britain were majorly driven by either conservatives or liberals parties. Allowing suffrage to more women saw the conservative’s party electorate increase substantially. Women tended to vote for the conservative party, which majorly contributed for their winning in the several elections during after 1918 reform. According to Ball, among the 4 elections held in 1920s in Britain, conservatives acquired the majority votes twice and lost twice in 1923 and later in 1929, from the competition of the Liberal and Labour parties (2013, p.76). No doubt that conservative party can be regarded as the dominant political party of the 20th century. Under the leadership of Late Margaret Thatcher in the 80s, Stanley Baldwin after the 1918 reform, and the short tenure of Harold Macmillan after mid-1950s, conservatives have won and “governed Britain for two-thirds of Churchill's parliamentary career” (Ramsden, n. d.). Even to date, the major political parties in Britain remain the Liberals, Labour and Conservatives. The public has voted in favour of one party over the other and where competition is stiff, the fragmentation of political parties and formation of coalitions with prominent ones has existed. FPTP system has led to what can be termed as the political divide of the North and South of the United Kingdom. Conservatives have been highly dominant in the south while the Labour’s strongholds are in the North. The other third parties wing that threatens conservatives is the Liberal party, but other smaller and less popular parties are either absorbed or eventually disappear. IDEA states that FPTP provides “a clear cut choice for voter between two dominant parties, such that the third and fragmented minority parties under FPTP in many cases cause the party system to gravitate towards a party of the ‘left’ and a party of the ‘right’, alternating in power” (2005, p. 36). The last 2010 election is a recent proof of the fairly realistic assumptions of the UK two party politics. Though it is arguably true to say that Liberals are gradually having a say in the current politics, it is actually not a new phenomenon because the same three parties (conservatives, Labor and Liberals) can distinctively be traced after the 1918 reforms. What is happening is the reshaping of parties and their powers, but have all co-existed for many decades without becoming extinct. FPTP system used for the Westminster elections has contributed to the political dominance of the large parties and often influenced majority voters to cast their ballot for candidates from such parties. FPTP has basically not worked in favor of the smaller parties in Britain. Most of them have lesser chances of acquiring a legislative seat compared to large parties. It is of the last two decades where the voting culture of Britain seems to be slowly changing and allowing smaller and single parties to acquire some popular support. Otherwise, the rise of current nationalist and Northern Irish parties in regions of Wales, Scotland and Ireland that have emerged fiercely in the elections were very faint in most elections of the 20th century. [Lodge and Gottfried, 2011, p. 9] The reason for the political wins of major parties is because FPTP has always been held with the assumption that people would always vote in favour of the prominent, or strongholds of political parties even if whom they elect is not the candidate of their first choice. The bargain is wasting a vote or supporting a party and their candidate other than the first choice. In other words, till recently, majority of the people in the 20th century had been discouraged from voting for their preferred candidate under FPTP, simply because they were headed for defeat. In any case why would one vote for a conservative candidate in a Labour stronghold region. 2. Existence of realistic alternative of the government FPTP has produced a system that has led both the government and a strong opposition that have alternated in power over the post war era. Majority of the members in the legislature come from two main parties other than the other third parties. Basically, the party with the majority seats produces the prime minister and makes the government, while the other elected MPs from other political parties form the opposition. In a two party system, left wing parties are the opposition to the governing party. At times where a coalition is formed and they win, they form the government and have to agree on the leader in the house/prime minister to lead the government. British politics always had strong oppositions since the introduction of FPTP, and can be attributed to the changes in governance by political parties and their elected candidates. During the 1920s, Liberal and Labour parties were crucial opposition to the conservative governments. In the course of the decade, they alternated powers between the parties in the four elections held and this has since been the trend many decades afterwards. There are special incidences where two of the opposing parties had to join forces in a coalition to win the election or form the government, but has not deflected the political will of the opposing party for long. For example, after conservative’s governance in the 1920s, labour opposition took power in 1929, but in 1931, a coalition government by the conservatives and liberals was formed against the labour government (Glover, 2005). Independent party government was restored back in the 40s. FPTP led to development of a coherent opposition in the successive legislative houses. With the leadership of Margaret Thatcher in the late 70s, Conservative party rose from opposition into Britain’s governance a decade later. In its opposition, Conservative party had acquired adequate seats in the parliament, which provided an opportunity to scrutinize and keep the government of the day (labour led) in check, and demonstrated to be a pragmatic alternative to the government before it came into power in the 80s. In the 2010 elections, a similar move of coalition by Conservative and Liberal democrats’ parties formed the government against a strong opposition of the labour party. Currently, while David Cameroon is the PM of Britain’s government, the opposition leader from Labour party is Edward Miliband MP (Parliament.uk, n.d.). FPTP has facilitated the formation of the shadow cabinets led by the main opposition, which is always keen to examine the performances of the government departments, question, assist in development of policies, and serve to support democracy. 3. Marginal seats determine the results of the elections At any one election, certain political parties are bound to either win or lose a parliamentary seat from a specific constituency. FPTP has encouraged the development of safe constituencies that would yield an easy win in the elections. This can be connected to the North-South divide of British politics based on the preferred political parties. Besides the few changes in last few elections since 2001, the last half of the 20th century remarkably demonstrates the existence of super safe seats that have firmly been in control of conservative, liberal and labour parties. These parties have retained most of the seats in past elections, while certain regions known to have fluctuating voting patterns aid in determining winners in elections. For example, the seat for East ham constituency has remained a no doubt Labour party stronghold compared to the vulnerable seats in the North Kent regions. Although there are stronghold constituencies and seats easily voted for in favour of either left or right wing parties, campaigns and vote counts from marginal seats acquire great attention. Under the FTPT system, a limited number of voters from both marginal and super marginal constituencies effectively determine elections turnout, compared to those from safe constituencies, whose ability to shape the outcome of the national results is quite minimal (Lodge and Gottfried, 2011). The main idea behind winning a national election and acquiring more seats and representatives from a political party depends on how well parties and their campaigns have influenced the voters in the ward to change their allegiance and allow a particular party to win the seat. Arising from the FPTP system, other than establishment of safe seats, another category of swing voters, majorly from marginal seats can be termed as the ruling minority. They are characterized by high likelihood of the seats to change hands between political parties due to voters’ probable nature of indecisiveness. According to the BBC, there are already “49 selected seats from the 100 most marginal seats from 2010 estimated to serve as the battlegrounds across Britain where the 2015 election will be decided” (2014). Similarly, majority of the nearly four hundred approximated safe seats during the last 2010 elections in UK produced the expected results and facilitated the marginal seats to be highly contested in the elections to be won by the coalition, rather than the labour opposition. This is perhaps the reason to the increasing argument case against FPTP, but has no doubt been a persistent trend. 4. Election of independent candidates and minority parties Although FPTP has been accused of supporting competing large political parties, it has also provided opportunities for developing parties and popular independent candidates to compete effectively in elections. Provided the candidate acquires the majority vote, then he or she wins a seat in the legislative house without a bias. For example, Lady Sylvia Hermon was re-elected in as an independent candidate in 2010 and acquired a seat in the Westminster after leaving the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) (Alvarez-Rivera, 2014). This and the election of candidates from minority parties indicates the changing trends that voters no longer have to choose between parties and the candidates thy present, but also between individual candidates who demonstrate commendable performances and ability to represent them and their needs in the parliament. In line with this, it serves to strengthen the link between the elected representative and his/her constituents by the majority vote. However, the politics and election turnout in a geographical region could be affected by the number of the competing candidates. For example, political views could be divided, where they follow the ideology of the two party system. In a case where Conservatives compete with labour exclusively, it may lead to a straight run off, but where candidates from multiple parties are to be elected, it would require fewer votes of the wining party to secure the seat, hence weakening the constituency link. References Alvarez-Rivera, 2014. Election Resources on the Internet: Parliamentary Elections in the United Kingdom - Elections to the House of Commons. [online] Available at: [Accessed 16 August 2014]. Ball, S., 2013. The Conservative Party and British Politics 1902 – 1951. New York: Routledge. Baston, L., 2007. Britain’s Experience of Electoral System. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 August 2014]. BBC, 2014. The Seats Which Could Decide the Next Elections. [online] Available at: [Accessed 16 August 2014]. Glover, J., 2005. Formed in Haste. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 August 2014]. IDEA, 2005. The System and their Consequences. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 August 2014]. Lodge, G. and Gottfried, G., 2011. Worst of Both Worlds: Why First Past the Post No Longer Works. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 August 2014]. Parliament.uk, n.d. Government and Opposition Roles. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 August 2014]. Ramsden, J., n.d. British Political Parties in Churchill’s time. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 August 2014]. Read More