The outcome of the General Election held in May of this year was a highly controversial one, spawning a host of angry tweets, demonstrations and accusations. However, what I found to be the most important debate aroused amid all of the post-General Election discussion was the one regarding electoral reform. The election exposed the flaws within the First Past The Post System – in that it caters for the maintenance of the ‘two-party system’ and neglects to give minority parties the prominence they may have otherwise been granted. First Past The Post is also arguably the least democratic of all voting systems, many have pointed out that it allowed the Tories to form a majority government – despite them winning just 36.9% of the vote. It also gives rise to various anomalies, for example in 1997 when Labour had their landslide victory – winning more seats than any other government of the Post-War era yet with just 43.2% of the vote.
Therefore the calls for electoral reform have been increasingly vocal, with many demanding that the UK uses the system of Proportional Representation utilised by so many of their European allies. PR appears to be the most favoured electoral system, the notion that every vote counts towards the way in which the government functions is clearly a favourable one. Had the UK chosen to use the simplest form of PR in May, the make-up of our government would be vastly different: UKIP would have over 100 seats, the Greens would have more seats than the SNP, the Conservatives would be unable to govern either independently or in coalition with one other party and the result would be a messy ‘compromise’ coalition consisting of up to 4 political parties after what would no doubt be lengthy and exhaustive negotiations.
On the one hand, a system of PR would be hugely beneficial in allowing Britain to become a more democratic nation, it would allow minority parties feel properly represented and would help to expand the reach of the so-called ‘Overton window’ by ensuring that views outside of the political consensus are also given prominence. Turnout most likely would be higher and we could finally dispense with the ‘wasted vote’ excuse when the time comes to traipse to the polling station. It’s possible that MPs would not have to rely on shock-tactics and political posturing simply to win votes as voters are much more likely to vote with their instincts rather than fall for petty electioneering tactics utilized most often by politicians from the main two parties.
However, it also may provide for further disillusionment, with coalitions between numerous parties giving the sense of a government wholly unrepresentative of anybody’s views. Overhaul of the current electoral system would be highly expensive and most likely would give rise to further bureaucracy, MPs may no longer serve the constituency they campaigned in and therefore without creating more hierarchies, local politics could become neglected in favour of national issues. Furthermore, disagreement on serious issues could be a severe hindrance to the effectiveness of government, people could soon find that the government they had voted in had little opportunity to make the changes they so desired due to the inefficiency of the system.
Proportional Representation is often romanticised, it appears to be perceived by many as the catalyst in the creation of a utopian left-wing democracy. However, whilst minority reformist parties such as the Greens and the Lib Dems would gain prominence, so would parties on the far-right such as UKIP. First Past The Post perhaps has its advantages in that despite UKIP coming third in terms of share of the vote won, they only managed to hold onto one seat. First Past The Post prevents the normalisation of extremist politics and the consensus it inevitably leads to is often a solid, centrist one, despite certain controversial digressions on either side.
Proportional Representation sounds incredibly appealing yet is perhaps perceived in too idealistic a light, however the ‘Arrow impossibility theorem’ acts as mathematical proof that true democracy cannot be obtained in any multi-party system. Therefore whilst PR has its flaws, perhaps it can be seen as the best of a bad bunch. A change in the voting system would take us closer to democracy than we have ever been before, yet for this to happen we must accept the repercussions of political extremism, confusion and disaffection that come alongside it.
Words by Beth Chaplow / @chxplow