FPTP, Fair? Has it led to a negative campaign-Discuss.Watch
- Political Ambassador
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?
Seats Under FPTP/Seats Under STV:
Lib Dem: 8/53
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
World TV revenues can help cut deficit, or spent on NHS so we all feel warm and fuzzy inside.