First past the post

What is First past the post? FPTP is the voting system used for the election of MPs to 'seats' in the UK Parliament. It is a system in which the 'winner takes all' and usually gives a clear majority both at constituency and national level. This means that a candidate in a constituency only needs one more vote than the nearest rival to win the seat. Similarly, political parties only need to win one more seat in the House of Commons to have a majority.

FPTP in Britain The British electoral system is based on the "First-Past-The-Post" system. In recent years, reforms have occurred in places such as Northern Ireland where a form of proportional representation has been used in elections and in the devolution elections surrounding Scotland and Wales. However, for the most part, Britain has used the tried and tested FPTP system.

Proportional representation There are a number of systems that use PR such as the Single Transferable Vote (STV) ( the Regional and National Lists) and the Alternative Vote. There is a third system that combines these two, known as the Additional Member System (AMS) or the hybrid or top-up system. The AMS system is presently used in elections for the Scottish Parliament, where voters can vote for single candidates in their constituencies but also for candidates from regional 'lists' put forward by each party. If there is a discrepancy between the percentage of seats the party has won and the percentage of votes cast, the seats are 'topped up' from the regional list.

Advantages of FPTP There is very little chance of extremist parties being elected to Parliament under FPTP because they are unlikely to gain enough votes in any one constituency. Generally the results of elections using FPTP can be calculated quickly. When necessary, this makes the transfer of power from one party to another much easier. The 1997 and 2001 elections were clear evidence of this.

Disadvantages of FPTP A major disadvantage of FPTP can occur in marginal constituencies, where voters tend to change their party loyalty from election to election, and among 'floating' or 'swing' voters, who have no firm party loyalty. The outcome of an election can be decided on the voting patterns in these situations, even although the constituents may number only a tiny proportion of the electorate.

Smaller parties are not fairly treated under FPTP. Although they may have a sizeable national support across the country, they do not get a proportional number of MPs because there are not enough votes concentrated in constituencies to let them win seats. This was shown in the 1983 general election when the Liberal/SDP Alliance won 25.4% of the vote and gained 23 seats while the Labour Party won 27.7% of the vote and gained 209 seats.

Our conclusion… The FPTP system is one that is open to a certain amount of abuse through the unfair treatment of smaller parties. The system it self is quite good and has been tried and tested for many years in the UK. We believe that the system will continue to function here in the UK and will not be replaced by any other alternative system in the near future as this could cause many issues for the government in power at the time of the transition.

THE END