Why the UK's electoral system is inherently flawed

 

The UK electoral system is named first past the post, where in the election the person with the highest number of votes wins the seat, no matter the percentage of votes they got, or how close the other candidates were to the winning candidate in number of votes. Then, the party with the most seats forms the government.

 

A key issue with first past the post as a voting system is that it tends to favour a two-party system, where two parties are fairly equally matched in terms of competing in the election, and there is a rotation of the two of them forming the government. This is clear in that since 1922 only the Conservative and Labour party have formed the government in the UK. This could be argued as being a coincidence, or because they are simply the most popular parties, however, first past the post favours the larger parties meaning they are the main parties who have representation. This creates a less legitimate government, as those who vote for a minor party are less likely to have their vote matter, in the sense that the party they vote for is unlikely to win.

The fact that those who support a minor party may feel their vote is wasted because of the unlikelihood of their winning may discourage them from voting, either at all or for the party that they actually support. Tactical voting is where people vote for the candidate, or party, that has the most realistic chance of winning the constituency, rather than who they prefer. This creates unhappy and apathetic voters, who may instead stop voting, creating even lower turnout.

First past the post also tends to lead to single party majority governments, rather than coalitions, which is clear in that there has only been one coalition government in the UK since 1945. People tend to argue that coalitions are less stable, and therefore first past the post is an acceptable system as it creates a strong government. However, with coalition governments more people are represented by the government, as MPs from more than one party are able to be part of the ruling party and can push their own constituencies agenda onto the government. Coalitions force politicians to work together, which makes sense especially for times of crisis, and ensures that every voter is represented in negotiations and legislation decisions. This creates a consensus between parties and has compromises that best represent all voters in legislation.

Another major issue is the creation of safe seats by this system. A safe seat is defined as a constituency where it is almost certain that one party will win the seat at every election, such as Leeds Central being a Labour safe seat. Approximately 59% of seats in the UK are safe seats, which is clearly not a good thing as it almost guarantees that the election isn’t based on which person is standing for election, but rather which party it is they’re in. Also, the fact the constituents will know it’s a safe seat can prevent people from voting, as they see it as a wasted vote, possibly leading the seat to remain a safe seat for even longer.

It would actually be more democratic to use another system that is closer to proportional representation. This is a system that takes into account the votes of the electorate, calculates the percentage of votes for each party and then gives the party the same percentage of seats as votes. Proportional representation is used in EU elections, and is used in European countries, such as in the Netherlands where in 2017 the VVD got 21% of the votes and 22% of the seats, which is a lot more democratic than in the UK in 2015, where the Green party got over 1 million votes but only 1 seat, while the SNP got nearly 1.5 million votes and got 56 seats.

There are clearly much better electoral systems than the current UK’s current one, and it has never been more evident that it needs to be replaced to ensure a more democratic outcome in elections.