Evaluate the view that proportional representation would improve elections to the house of
commons
Proportional representation would not improve elections to the house of commons. PR does
not produce strong and stable governments like FPTP and allow extremist parties to gain
more seats in parliament. While opponents to this view would argue that governments
elected under FPTP have little democratic legitimacy because of the ‘winner takes all
system’ and that FPTP encourages ‘safe seats’, ultimately this is weak. This is because
although FPTP does not always produce governments that are widely supported, this is
more favourable than allowing extremist parties to becoming elected. Safe seats have been
eroded in recent years and the complexity of PR would deter people from voting, therefore
the proposition is inaccurate.
A strong argument in favour of the proposition is that, as the source posits that ‘PR would be
likely to encourage more people to vote’ because it ‘is hard to persuade people to vote when
they live in so called safe seats’. This indeed is accurate and may explain the reason behind
the decrease in voter turnout with it being 67% in 2019 down from 68% in 2017. A poll
conducted by the Electoral reform society in December 2019 found that only 2% of voters
believed that their vote counted in general elections and this mirrors the growing
disillusionment in voters towards how elections to the house of commons are carried out.
The ERS also found out that around 14 million people are living under safe seats that had
not changed since WW2. PR on the other hand would eliminate so called safe seats and
improve elections to the house of commons because more voters would be inclined to vote
knowing their vote would not be wasted, thus ensuring higher voter turnout and greater
democratic legitimacy in the elections to the commons. However, this does not justify the
proposition. So called ‘safe seats’ have been eroded in recent years with the collapse of
labours ‘red wall’ being the prime example of this. PR would ‘not encourage more people to
vote’ because the complexity of it would actually deter people from voting leading to lower
voter turnout and governments lacking democratic legitimacy. This can be justified by the
2011 alternative vote referendum where 68% of voters chose to stay with FPTP. This is why
proportional representation would not improve elections to the house of commons.
It should therefore be clear that PR does not improve elections to the house of commons.
Opponents to this view would also posit that as the source states that ‘FPTP is damaging the
legitimacy of our system of governance’ and that ‘policy is likely to change drastically when
governments change’. Indeed, FPTP promotes a ‘winner takes all system’ preventing
smaller parties to have a chance of becoming elected and does not always ensure that the
party elected is done so through a large share of the popular vote. Blair for example in 1997
although won a landslide victory of 179 seats, he merely captured 31% of the popular vote
because of low voter turnout. FPTP does not allocate votes to seats and this does favour
larger parties like the Tories and labour but proves disadvantageous to smaller parties. The
green party in 2019 for example almost got 1 million votes but only gained one seat. In 2015
UKIP captured 12% of the vote and 4 million votes but only got one seat. Katie Ghose from
the ERS said that under PR UKIP could have gotten up to 80 seats in 2015. However, this
argument cannot justify the proposition. Although PR would allow smaller parties to have a
greater chance of becoming elected, ensuring greater democracy within elections, this in
itself is a flaw of PR. This is because it would allow extremist parties like the BNP and Britain
first to occupy seats. This would have an adverse effect on elections to the commons and
not improve the overall elections to the commons.
commons
Proportional representation would not improve elections to the house of commons. PR does
not produce strong and stable governments like FPTP and allow extremist parties to gain
more seats in parliament. While opponents to this view would argue that governments
elected under FPTP have little democratic legitimacy because of the ‘winner takes all
system’ and that FPTP encourages ‘safe seats’, ultimately this is weak. This is because
although FPTP does not always produce governments that are widely supported, this is
more favourable than allowing extremist parties to becoming elected. Safe seats have been
eroded in recent years and the complexity of PR would deter people from voting, therefore
the proposition is inaccurate.
A strong argument in favour of the proposition is that, as the source posits that ‘PR would be
likely to encourage more people to vote’ because it ‘is hard to persuade people to vote when
they live in so called safe seats’. This indeed is accurate and may explain the reason behind
the decrease in voter turnout with it being 67% in 2019 down from 68% in 2017. A poll
conducted by the Electoral reform society in December 2019 found that only 2% of voters
believed that their vote counted in general elections and this mirrors the growing
disillusionment in voters towards how elections to the house of commons are carried out.
The ERS also found out that around 14 million people are living under safe seats that had
not changed since WW2. PR on the other hand would eliminate so called safe seats and
improve elections to the house of commons because more voters would be inclined to vote
knowing their vote would not be wasted, thus ensuring higher voter turnout and greater
democratic legitimacy in the elections to the commons. However, this does not justify the
proposition. So called ‘safe seats’ have been eroded in recent years with the collapse of
labours ‘red wall’ being the prime example of this. PR would ‘not encourage more people to
vote’ because the complexity of it would actually deter people from voting leading to lower
voter turnout and governments lacking democratic legitimacy. This can be justified by the
2011 alternative vote referendum where 68% of voters chose to stay with FPTP. This is why
proportional representation would not improve elections to the house of commons.
It should therefore be clear that PR does not improve elections to the house of commons.
Opponents to this view would also posit that as the source states that ‘FPTP is damaging the
legitimacy of our system of governance’ and that ‘policy is likely to change drastically when
governments change’. Indeed, FPTP promotes a ‘winner takes all system’ preventing
smaller parties to have a chance of becoming elected and does not always ensure that the
party elected is done so through a large share of the popular vote. Blair for example in 1997
although won a landslide victory of 179 seats, he merely captured 31% of the popular vote
because of low voter turnout. FPTP does not allocate votes to seats and this does favour
larger parties like the Tories and labour but proves disadvantageous to smaller parties. The
green party in 2019 for example almost got 1 million votes but only gained one seat. In 2015
UKIP captured 12% of the vote and 4 million votes but only got one seat. Katie Ghose from
the ERS said that under PR UKIP could have gotten up to 80 seats in 2015. However, this
argument cannot justify the proposition. Although PR would allow smaller parties to have a
greater chance of becoming elected, ensuring greater democracy within elections, this in
itself is a flaw of PR. This is because it would allow extremist parties like the BNP and Britain
first to occupy seats. This would have an adverse effect on elections to the commons and
not improve the overall elections to the commons.
