FPTP, Fair? Has it led to a negative campaign-Discuss.

Watch
balanced
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Nigel Farage made good on his pledge to stand down as leader after narrowly losing South Thanet. UKIP high command had always known the party would get a disproportionately small number of seats given their national vote, but the results were far worse than their lowest expectations.

Paul Nuttall told the Daily Express: “The first past the post system was designed for the 19th century and has no place in a 21st century functioning democracy. The fact a political party can poll nearly four million votes and have one seat is an affront to democracy.

“Electoral reform has to be put back to the front of the agenda.”

Farage said the current voting system was “bankrupt”. He added: “One party can get 50 per cent of the vote in Scotland and nearly 100per cent of the seats, and our party can get four million votes and just one seat,”

“For those reasons there are a lot of angry UKIP people out there. They’re not giving up on Ukip, but absolutely determined that we get a fairer, more reflective system. But there’s something deeper about this first past the post system.

“What it’s led to is a General Election in which, because the system that was designed to produce majority government couldn’t do it, has led to a totally negative General Election campaign.”

The Liberal Democrats also were disadvantaged by first past the post, they dropped into single figures but would have gained a respectable 53 seats under a fairer system. UKIPs misery was compounded by the fact the SNP got less than half the number of votes yet won 56 seats.

It is arguable,as stated above, that this system has led to negative campaigning. To what extent do you agree with this and also, do you think that the system has put into government a largely un-elected party?
0
reply
Flynn96
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
I'm going to just post the figures, and it will prove that FPTP is broekn, does no longer work in UK politics and should be replaced with STV.

Seats Under FPTP/Seats Under STV:
Conservative: 331/240
Labour: 232/213
UKIP: 1/83
Lib Dem: 8/53
Green: 1/24
SNP: 56/37
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
Not broken. What it shows is the parties suck and need reform to better reflect who they are representing. FPTP is great in creating a strong majority government with a strong shadow opposition government to create a representative accountability in the house. More democracy=/=better, necessarily.

when I say 'representing': I am referring to ideology, not identity. The conservatives must do better at conserving Britain and her heritage and Labour must go full Socialist and drop the cuck act and lobby for equality. Both must drop their corporatist angle and get back to representing the majority. This is why Greens and UKIP now exist. UKIP made gains in the GE, votes-wise which still applies pressure to the Cons. Seats or no seats.

Tldr: fptp is good, lukewarm parties bad.
0
reply
Feels
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by HigherMinion)
Not broken. What it shows is the parties suck and need reform to better reflect who they are representing. FPTP is great in creating a strong majority government with a strong shadow opposition government to create a representative accountability in the house. More democracy=/=better, necessarily.
It reflects the party with the most money, tribal votes and shills in the media win
0
reply
Flynn96
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by Feels)
It reflects the party with the most money, tribal votes and shills in the media win
This guy knows.
0
reply
tengentoppa
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
No-one complained when Labour won the election in 2005 with 35% of the vote, and I guarantee most of those protesting that it is undemocratic would not have complained if Labour had won. UKIP and Green voters have a right to feel aggrieved though.

FTPT is a good system, geared towards a 2 party system with a majority government and a strong opposition. Proportional representation would mean inefficient coalitions and representation for extreme parties. I would rather keep FTPT, but in a situation where 4 million votes translates into 1 seats I can understand the clamour for electoral reform. Worth noting we did reject such reform in 2011.
0
reply
n00
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
:daydreaming:
0
reply
Onde
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by tengentoppa)
No-one complained when Labour won the election in 2005 with 35% of the vote, and I guarantee most of those protesting that it is undemocratic would not have complained if Labour had won. UKIP and Green voters have a right to feel aggrieved though.
Actually quite a lot of people complained in 2005, the media and political comedy were full of it. It chimed with the narrative with those who felt "deceived" by Blair etc over many years too. I personally felt annoyed that my party was under-represented but I thought "at least it isn't the Tories in power".
0
reply
Farm_Ecology
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
To those arguing that FPTP gives us a strong majority government, why don't we just completely scrap the whole electoral system all together and have a completely hereditary and appointed government, that will get rid of that pesky majority seeking representation.
1
reply
joey11223
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by Farm_Ecology)
To those arguing that FPTP gives us a strong majority government, why don't we just completely scrap the whole electoral system all together and have a completely hereditary and appointed government, that will get rid of that pesky majority seeking representation.
Nah that's just absolute rubbish. What should happen is each parties leader will stand at the royal jousting tournament (sponsoring by Skybet/WH), Old liz, Charlie boy, Wills and fam, naughty Harry etc, all in attendance of course. The leaders will joust in a knock-out competition and the winners party shall govern by royal decree.

World TV revenues can help cut deficit, or spent on NHS so we all feel warm and fuzzy inside.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

If you're planning on going to uni this year, would any of these financial reasons stop you?

Not being able to work now to save up for uni (92)
13.81%
Reduced household income due to coronavirus means I can't afford to go (56)
8.41%
Lack of part-time jobs to support me while I'm at uni (85)
12.76%
Lack of graduate job prospects when I finish uni (80)
12.01%
Other reasons are stopping me going (86)
12.91%
Nothing is stopping me going (267)
40.09%

Watched Threads

View All