Is the first past the post electoral system fair?

Question

It seems from my understanding that this system offers unfair advantage to the labour party due to the demographic arrangement of the electorate

It is possible for the conservatives to recieve more votes yet still lose on the number of elected seats.

Labour has rearranged boundaries to manipulate this system to its advantage.

Would it be better for a type of proportional representation?

Why doesnt the conservative party encourage this?

Millions are casting wasted votes.Surely there is something I dont know.

Miggity,
I am not giving advice,
the symbol does not represent Hitler,
Hitler was democratically elected,
If your not up to answering a sensible question then please stick to the Jade Goody questions.

Answer 1

FPTP does have flaws as a voting system, so does any other system that has so far been devised...

On Labour/Conservative bias, note that were Scotland to go independent, England would have an almost unshiftable Conservative majority.

On electoral gerrymandering, the boundary commission is generally agreed to be independent, (not least because proposed changes are fiercely contested) and the latest round of changes is going to cost Labour a significant number of seats. (URL)

Depending with the form of PR, there are also distinct drawbacks. It can give disproportionate power to small parties required to form ruling coalitions and, even more than the current UK system, lead to "centre ground" politics for the major parties: no difference, no daring, no vision.

Many PR systems operate from party lists, separating the generally valued link with a constituency MP, and making success for the MP purely dependent on their standing with the party, not a local electorate (if you want to be well up the list, don't rock the boat)

A constituency system with a top-up list (single transferrable vote?) might be the most fair, but is far from the most simple or transparent. And that's a problem in itself.

But yes, under the current system, all opposition votes in "safe seats" are effectively wasted, as are notionally many majority votes where the poll is overwhelmingly on one side.
(People of strong political inclinations should move to constituencies which can be won or lost?)

Answer 2

I'm an American and also support Proportional Representation systems or, as we like to call it in the USA, Proportional Voting. PR is a family of other systems like party-list PR, the Single Transferable Vote and Mixed Member Proportional system. I don't like the Simple Plurality system or Party-List system because they'll give you one or the other. STV seems to be understandable and gives voters better choice than the other 2 systems but counting is sometimes confusing. However, I like a modified version of the Mixed Member Proportional (or Additional Member System in UK) like the Alternative Vote Plus but without such a confusing ballot (a mix of ordinal and categorical ballots, no wonder it fizzled). Since the USA copied the Simple Plurality system from the UK when we started, why don't you have some type of proportional system? We're both close allies and if our government followed your two-party system with single-party majorities, why won't we follow if you move to a proportional system? I'm totally against the fact that the most voted party would lose the election. I'm not a fan of coalitions because 2 parties coming in 2nd and 3rd could unite and govern even though the winning party had the most seats; some countries have coalitions being formed before elections (which I think is very good). Say party A had 45% of the seats, party B had 35%, party C 15% and party D 5% and assuming that parties A and C form coalition 1 and parties B and D form coalition 2, coalition 1 would have 60% of the seats and coalition 2 would have 40% of the seats. If I were voting in the UK, I'd vote Torie. I think the UK will have a Torie/Lib Dem coalition. Thanks!

Answer 3

First of all, the Boundary Commission are the people who change electoral boundaries, and they're independent.
Second, no the first past the post is unfair since it is possible for the popular vote to come second.
Third, PR would mean a continuous coalition, and if you think that current politicians are self serving, you ain't seen nothin'!
There has to be another way, but until a satisfactory system is devised and accepted I guess we're stuck with what we have. The Boundary Commission ensure that the Parliamentary Constituencies are more or less equal demographically and that's about all we can hope for.

Answer 4

PR is the simple, fair, answer. Under PR every vote counts, every shade of political opinion is reflected. The reason for low turnouts at elections now is because your have hard line Labour constituencies, hard line Tory constituencies and it's just the uncommitted constituencies that the major parties fight over. PR would get rid of the present, flawed, system and would mean everyone's vote means something tangible. It would be more democratic and fair.

Answer 5

No major party that has a decent chance of winning a majority ever supports proportional representation, that would include both Labour and the Conservatives. Both realize that PR would mostly help the Liberal Democrats gain more seats and end the chances that either of them would be able to form a government alone. Coalition would be a necessity.

So, of course, the Conservative party, which dominated from 1979 to early 1997 with their own parliamentary majorities, isn't going to support PR.

Answer 6

Your argument is completely wrong. Labour has not rearranged any boundaries - they are drawn by the Boundaries Commission which is independent of Government. Also, it was reported only last week that the Tories stand to gain a significant number of seats at the next General Election simply because of boundary changes.

Also I think the only time a party got the most votes, but win the most seats was when Labour polled more votes, but the Tories got the most MPs.

The Tories have been the biggest supporters of First Past the Post, Labour has introduced Proportional Representation in Scotland, London, Wales and for EU elections.

Answer 7

We have had at least 2 instances in the past where the party with more votes lost. However, PR (proportional representation) works depending on the Country. Germany, is very stable with it, yet Italy is totally loopy with who they elect.

Answer 8

Taking election advise from somebody that displays the Nazi symbol probably isn't the best idea. I also find it interesting that somebody who uses the sign of Hitler, who disbanded his legislature and took over absolute, would be concerned about the votes of the people and a proportional government.

It is the symbol for the Nazi party, the classic german eagle with the swastika.

And we have proportional representation here in the United States and boundaries are redrawn fairly often to help out one party.

Answer 9

No...it is obvious in the UK in the last 6 elections.