Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Proportional representation
Section B. Constitutional/governance

Some countries including the USA and the UK use an electoral system called ’first past the post’ (FPTP) in some of their elections. This is where the candidate who receives the most votes wins the seat and the other votes count for nothing. Should such countries reform this system to a more proportional one where the number of seats won is more in line with the popular vote received? There are many models of proportional representation such as Single Transferable Vote or Alternative Vote. A Proposition team may wish to research these models and choose a system to support since they all have slightly different pros and cons, but the debate can also be had on the principle.

Pros

[1] Britain and America’s current electoral system is winner-takes-all, ’first past the post’ democracy. Whichever single candidate gains the most votes wins the constituency, and votes for the other parties are ignored, even if the winner only won by a couple of votes. Thus, parties with a slight lead in the country can get a vastly disproportionate majority in legislature. For example, in the 1997 UK general election, Labour won less than 45 per cent of the popular vote but 64 per cent of the seats in parliament. It is even possible for a government or a president to be elected with a minority of the popular vote, as happened with George W. Bush in 2000. This is undemocratic.

[2] Small parties are not represented at all. In the 1997 UK election, the Liberal Democrats’ 17 per cent of the vote gave them around 7 per cent of the seats and the Referendum Party’s 2.5 per cent gave them no MPs at all. This cannot be fair. Introducing PR is the way to end this unfairness and allow small parties to get the recognition they deserve. Proportional representation also frees the electorate to vote for smaller parties knowing that their vote will not be wasted.

[3] It is right that we should be governed by coalitions, since in reality there is no majority opinion on most issues. The art of social harmony and fair government is the ability to reach compromises. This is the most mature and civilised way to govern. ’Strength of government’ seen another way is simply the minority steamrolling their views through over the majority.A coalition government does not have to mean instability: in Germany, Gerhard Schroeder’s Social Democratic Party governed in coalition with the Green Party from 1998 to 2005.

[4] Members of parliament often get elected with a minority of the vote. In 1997, the Liberal Democrats won Tweeddale in the Scottish Borders with 31 per cent of the vote; seats won with under 35 per cent of the vote were by no means uncommon. So the people’s so- called representatives normally represent only a minority of their constituents. Some forms of PR ensure that a representative has at least 51 per cent of the vote, while others allow multiple winners in each seat to ensure greater representation. This in turn leads to a stronger mandate for politicians.

[5] In ’safe’ seats, there is hardly any incentive for people to vote. In seats in the North West of England where Labour regularly wins 80 per cent of the vote, it is often said that a root vegetable with a red rosette would be elected. In the USA, there is a congressional seat in Tennessee that the Republicans have held since 1869. People feel their vote is wasted, since the result is a foregone conclusion. With a PR system, everyone’s vote counts even if they are in the minority in their particular constituency. Proportional representation also stops the situation where a whole election and all of its campaigning is really happening in only a handful of marginal seats. It equalises people’s votes so that parties have to try to have a wider appeal across the country.

Cons

[1] All electoral systems are unfair in one way or another. Across the globe, no uniform democratic system has emerged, and different countries all have very different ways of electing representatives democratically.

[2] Proportional representation creates governments that are at the mercy of the whims of tiny parties with negligible electoral support. Such small parties can hold larger parties to ransom if it is their support that makes the difference between a coalition government maintaining an overall majority or losing it. Proportional representation leads to instability and disproportionate power for small parties. It is not more democratic to have a small party decide who the government of the day is.

[3] Proportional representation creates weak coalition governments, as in Italy where the Communist Party, despite a low level of support, frequently holds considerable sway by offering to form coalitions with larger parties and thus form a majority government. Elections there are far more frequent than in Britain, for example, because the coalition governments that PR produces are weak and unstable and frequently collapse. No system is perfect, but the current one at least guarantees some continuity and strength of government over a sufficient period of time to instigate a legislative programme.

[4] Systems that count a voter’s second choice force political parties to bargain with each other for each other’s second- place recommendations. Back-room dealings like this do not aid democracy. Would the public be happy to be ruled by a party that was everyone’s second choice — as, for example, the Liberal Democrats could well be in Britain? Systems which allow for multi-member constituencies dilute and devalue the representation and accountability of the constituency system. Forms of PR which use party lists to top up — adding representatives to an elected body based on a political party receiving a certain share of the vote across a wider area — break the constituency link, creating two tiers of politicians and putting too much power in the hands of the central party machine.

[5] Many of the systems proposed are hugely complex. If the public does not understand the political system, then results can seem arbitrary and accountability is lost. The uncertainty and confusion this creates can cause disillusionment with the democratic process. Some voters will understand and use tactical voting to their advantage, whereas others will not know how to play the game. The transparency of the ’first past the post’ system is one of its many virtues.

Possible motions

This House believes in proportional representation.

This House believes that the ’first past the post’ system is undemocratic.

Related topics

Democracy

Referenda, increased use of

Voting, compulsory