How Far Does the Westminster Electoral System Ensure Strong and Stable Government?

However the government is held to account by the British public in general elections because the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system favours the two party

FPTP usually provides a majority government this means parliament can put bills through easier. For example in 1997 and 2001 labour received most votes with landslide victories. Whereas using an AMS system you would usually get a coalition or an minority government. For example a majority SNP government was in place in 2007. This means that manifesto pledges couldn’t be made because the SNP would need support from other parties this shows that FPTP makes passing bills easier.

In this essay I will assess the outcomes of Additional Member system, First Past the Post system and the Closed Party List system. The F-P-T-P system is used to elect the members of House of Commons and local government in England and Wales. Voters select candidates, and do so by marking his or her name with an ‘X’ on the ballot paper. This reflects the principle of ‘one person, one vote’. The Additional Members system is used in Scottish parliament, Welsh assembly, and Northern Ireland Assembly and Greater London assembly. It is a mixed system made up of F-P-T-P and party-list elements. The Regional party list (or the closed party list) is used to elect the

Basically, voters select one candidate from their riding, just like in an SMP system, but they also place a vote for which party they would like to form the government. This second vote determines the amount of seats that each party gains proportional to the amount of votes they collected in the countries. The representatives from each party are then made up of the elected representatives from each riding (if that party was able to elect any) and other members selected by the leader1. An STV system, which is what the Citizen’s Assembly recommended to the people of BC, can be found in Ireland, Malta, and in some levels of government in Australia. Voters rank candidates according to their priorities, choosing as many as they wish. For example, a certain voter could select a Conservative as his or her first choice, a Liberal as the second, a New Democrat as third, and then cast no votes for the Green Party. When each a candidate reaches a certain quota of first place votes, they are elected, and the extra first place votes that they did not need are distributed to the other parties according to their overall ranking. If a second candidate is then elected, his or her extra votes are then distributed to the remaining parties, and so on . This system is rather complicated, especially when compared to our current system, but computerized voting systems have generally alleviated any problems.

The two-party system is said to promote governmental stability because a single party can win a majority of political offices and, with less bickering between differing and partisan legislators, govern more efficiently. In a multiparty country, on the other hand, the formation of a government depends on the maintenance of a coalition of parties with enough total strength to form a political majority. The weakness of the ties that bind the coalition may threaten the continuance of a cabinet in power. The stability shown by the government of the United States has not been entirely due to its party system, it has been argued, but has been promoted also by the fixed tenure and strong constitutional position of the president, as well as checks and balances built into the constitution to prevent one branch of federal government from becoming too powerful.

Another important reason that Canada should select a different election system is that the FPTP system has a large impact on smaller parties. According to Political Scientist Maurice Duverger’s Law, given enough time FPTP systems will eventually become a

First Past the Post is the system we currently use in the UK, but whilst some may enjoy this system, there are limitations to this system. Perhaps the strongest criticism of the system is that it does not proportionally reflect the voting of the people. What is meant by this is that a party may receive less proportion of seats in the General Election than

Another impact of FPTP on the British political system is that it tends to produce a strong and stable government. It gives a clear mandate to the government and concentrate power in its hands, thus making it easier to hold the executive accountable (ibid: p.2). This means that most of the elected parties so far had a clear majority in the Parliament. Therefore, they were able to form governments without major issues and pass legislation through both houses, where they enjoyed support of the majority of MPs. The system could be declared as unfair as it ‘rewards the party that comes first in votes more generously than the party that runs second’ (Curtice: 2010: p.624). This suggests that it gives some bonus seats to whoever comes first, so the clear majority can be formed. The phenomenon can be explained by a theory where one party wins 51% of the votes cast for the two largest parties and gets awarded 53% of the seats won by both parties (ibid: 625). This has been the case not only in last General Elections, but also in the recent past. In 1997, Tony Blair and The Labour Party won 43.2% of the popular vote and 419 seats, which more than 50% (50% = 325 seats) of the seat share, and therefore were able to form a single-party government (BBC News: 2005). Single-party governments are considered to make quick and easy decisions and to implement a ‘sustained line of policy’ (The Guardian: 1998). For example, in 2003, Tony Blair managed to get the support from the Commons backing to send UK forces into battle with Saddam Hussein - with 396 votes opposed to 217 rebel votes, despite the fact that 139 of them were Labour rebels (BBC News, 2003). If he did not enjoy such majority in the House, his ability to

Britain is considering changing current first past the post voting system (FPTP) to proportional representation (PR). The main reason is that FPTP is “quasi-democratic” voting system under which there is only one majority party ruling the government and it does not represent wishes of all voters as some votes are wasted. Whereas, PR seems to be the best alternative voting system with proportionality of seats in mandatory places, more parties ruling government and etc. Let us look at these two voting systems and analyze whether PR is suitable and alternative change for FPTP and do advantages of PR outweigh disadvantages.

Some UK citizens might explain their concerns over First-Past-The-Post because the system is deemed to be outdated and unfair. The royal opposition also explains that the current system excludes smaller political parties by discarding the least popular votes, the current system promotes tactical voting by voters choosing the most popular or common representative, and the UK’s voting participation has fallen 65% since the past few years due to citizens lack of interest in highly controversial politics. Altho they express their concerns, First-Past-The-Post is the best system for the UK government.

It is important to first identify the most common definition of a single party state. Single party, or one party states, usually arise during times of crisis. Crisis’s include economic collapse, Military instability, Social and class conflicts and ethnic differences. These conditions allow a single party leader to arise through the creation of a political ideology that provides a solution to one or more of these crisis 's. The concept of a single party state is one that is unique to the 20th century. Before the 20th century, single party states were most similar to absolute monarchies- where a monarch exercises all rights to govern and rule their country. There are many

First-past-the-post is used to elect MPs to the House of Commons and for local elections in England and Wales.

One of the most contested systems, but also a prevalent one in many countries like India and Canada, is the First Past The Post System. It is seen as one of the easiest systems, and is often also referred to as the winner-takes-all system. The winner of the election will be the candidate who garners more votes than the others, simply put. The voter is given names of the different candidates and simply has to chose one of them. In England and Wales, this system is used for local elections as well as to choose Ministers to the House of Commons. In this system, particular regions are divided into numerous constituencies and voters are supposed to mark

As one of Europe’s oldest democratic countries, the United Kingdom consequently has one of the oldest voting systems, a plurality system often called First-Past-The-Post. The system relies on a basic principle; voters can vote for only one candidate and the candidate who receives the most votes wins the seat. (UK Parliament Website, 2014) As the quotation from David Cameron shows, the system is often hailed as one of the simplest voting systems possible, and is mainly used in the U.K for national elections.

Elections and electoral systems aim at converting the popular will expressed as votes into choices between candidates of political parties for political offices in the executive and legislature. The electoral system therefore reflects itself in the party system and the structure of governmental representation. This association between elections, parties and government takes different forms. Ideal electoral systems should comprise of competition, effective government, and fair representation along with free and fair voting.