Most Popular Party Forms Government

Proportional representation produces fairer election results that 'first past the post'. Discuss (15)

FPTP is fair  most popular party forms government FPTP is unfair  seats not votes => party with most votes doesn't always win  not proportional - disadvantages smaller parties PR is fair  more proportional => more representative, esp for smaller parties  coalition government => represents views of more voters PR is unfair  no one voted for coalition

Proportional representation systems are used throughout Britain in elections to the Scottish and Welsh and European Parliaments as well as for council elections in Scotland. PR is generally considered to produce fairer results than first past the post (FPTP), the majority voting system used in general elections. However it could be argued that there are elements of fairness and unfairness in both PR and FPTP.

FPTP could be called fair because it is based on the principle that the candidate with the most votes wins the constituency seat, and the party with most seats wins the election. The party that proves most popular across the country almost always achieves decisive victory meaning they form a strong majority government and and are able to carry out their election promises without being voted down by the opposition. This seems only fair and democratic.

However, this is not always the case. Under FPTP the result is based on seats won, not votes. This means that FPTP can occasionally lead to distorted results, in which the winning party actually got less votes that the party coming second. This has happened on two occasions since WWII. FPTP could therefore be called unfair because it cannot guarantee to most popular party with the voters will actually win.

In addition, FPTP is criticised for producing results which are not proportional. For example, in 2005 the Labour party won just over 30% of the vote, yet got 56% of all the seats. This is unfair as the results do not accurately represent the wishes of the voters. It is particularly unfair to small parties who lack the support needed to win seats. For example, the Green party got 1% of all votes cast in 2005, yet did not achieve a single seat. FPTP therefore means that many voters go unrepresented.

On the other hand, PR systems could be said to be fairer. The aim of PR is to produce a result in which the percentage of seats won by each party is roughly equal to their percentage of the vote. This means that the views of voters are more accurately represented in parliament and also that smaller partied receive the number of seats they deserve. For example, the Scottish Parliament, elected using the additional member system (AMS), has two Green MSPs, thanks to the proportional list vote. If FPTP had been used, the Greens would have won no seats. This shows PR systems can be fairer.

Since PR systems are proportional, no one party is likely to win a majority of seats. This means parties often form coalition governments, as with the Scottish Lib-Lab coalition which lasted from 1999 to 2007. Coalitions could be considered a fairer way of running the country. For example, under FPTP the party that forms the government typically has only 30-40% of the votes cast, yet they have total control of decision making. However, in a coalition, two or more parties govern together, so altogether the majority of voter's views are taken into consideration.

To some extent, coalitions are fair, but they could also be seen as unfair. They take power away from voters because no one actually votes for a coalition; coalition deals are decided through discussions between party leaders. One of the coalition partners is often a small party, who gains excessive influence thanks to their place in government. For example, the Liberal Democrats came 4th in the 1999 election, after the SNP and Conservatives, yet they had two ministers in government and were able to get their own policies introduced, such free university tuition. The Liberal Democrats policies have been popular in the long run, but all coalitions risk turning into 'mix and match' governments that were not voted for by anyone.

Overall, the basic principle of FPTP is fair, but in practice it produces unfair results, because they are not proportional. On the other hand, PR is essentially a fair system since it aims for proportionality, though the reality means that parties are then forced into coalitions governments which are not chosen by voters.