proportional representation should be introduced

• Argument 1: FPTP and Extremist Parties

  Point:FPTP is often praised for its ability to exclude extremist parties, as it requires candidates to win a plurality of votes in a constituency, making it difficult for fringe parties to gain representation.

  Example:

  • 2024 - Reform won 4 million votes but only gained 5 seats
  • Under FPTP, extremist parties are unlikely to gain significant representation, as their support is usually too dispersed to win individual constituencies.
• Counter-Argument 1: However, FPTP’s lack of proportionality undermines its democratic legitimacy, as it often results in a significant disparity between votes and seats.

  Example:

  • In the 2019 general election, the Liberal Democrats won 11.5% of the vote but only 11 seats (1.7% of the total), while the Conservatives won 56% of the seats with just 44% of the vote.
  • 
    
  • This demonstrates that FPTP disproportionately benefits larger parties and marginalises smaller ones, leading to a lack of fair representation in Parliament.
• Argument 2: FPTP and Voter Choice

  FPTP is often praised for its simplicity and ease of use, as voters only need to select one candidate, and results are usually known quickly.

  Example:

  • The 2011 Alternative Vote (AV) referendum, in which 68% of voters rejected changing the electoral system, suggests that the public values the simplicity of FPTP.

  This suggests that FPTP’s simplicity and familiarity make it a popular choice among voters, ensuring quick and decisive election results.
• Counter-Argument 2: Limited Voter Choice and Tactical Voting

  However, FPTP severely limits voter choice, as voters can only select one candidate, leading to wasted votes and tactical voting.

  Example:

  • In the 2019 general election, 32% of voters admitted to voting tactically, choosing a party they did not fully support to prevent their least favourite party from winning.
  • Under FPTP, votes in safe seats are effectively wasted, as the outcome is often predetermined, leading to lower turnout and voter disengagement.
  • This demonstrates that FPTP discourages voters from supporting smaller parties and forces them to vote strategically, undermining the democratic process
• Argument 3: FPTP and Strong Governments

  Point:FPTP is often praised for producing strong, single-party governments with clear mandates, enabling them to implement significant policy changes.

  Example:

  • In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government introduced sweeping economic reforms, while Tony Blair’s Labour government in 1997 carried out extensive constitutional changes.

  Significance:This suggests that FPTP provides stability and strong governance, as single-party governments can act decisively without the need for coalition negotiations.
• Counter-Argument 3: Weak Governments and Lack of Legitimacy

  However, FPTP often produces governments that lack majority support, leading to weak and illegitimate governance.

  Example:

  • In the 2017 general election, the Conservatives formed a minority government with the support of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), despite winning only 43% of the vote.
  • FPTP ensures that governments are formed quickly, with results usually known within 24 hours of polling.
  • This suggests that FPTP provides stability and strong governance, as single-party governments can act decisively without the need for coalition negotiations.
• FPTP and extremist parties vs lack of proportionality

  FPTP and voter choice VS FPTP limited voter choice and tactical voting

  Strong government vs Weak government mandates