The First-Past-The-Post system (FPTP) is currently used to elect representatives to the House of Commons. It is true that FPTP is an efficient and simple way of voting that has been trusted for years. Nevertheless, FPTP discriminates against minority parties and leads to non-accurate election results. The large amount of wasted votes is also a major criticism associated with the FPTP system. Recently, the Alternative Vote System is recognized as a way to increase fairness and improve election results. AV eliminates discrimination, makes votes worthy, and improves government functioning. Therefore, this essay analyzes the problems with FPTP with statistical evidence from past elections of the United Kingdom, and proposes Alternative Vote as
…show more content…
Voters choose one preferred candidate, and they mark an X next to the person on a ballot paper. The one who gets the most number of votes wins representation of the constituency. So, it is easy to count the votes and clear to see who wins. However, the results tend to favor the major parties, i.e. the Labor Party and the Conservatives, and disadvantage minority ones. To illustrate, the Liberal Democrats Party had never won more than 62 votes before 2005. Other small parties such as UKIP, BNP, etc have never won more than 10% of the total vote. In addition, over the past 50 years of British elections, the power shifts between the Conservatives and the Labor Party, and is never in the hands of the Lib Dams or other small parties. Thus, using FPTP method in UK elections is a clear discrimination against minority …show more content…
As for the 2010 election, fewer than 460,000 voters made the final decision. This was only 1.6% of the entire electorate. Recall the election results of 2005, 70% of the voters did not vote for the winning Labor Party. If there was a second round, those 70% of votes could be used to alter election outcomes. So, voters can use their vote again to appoint their second favorite candidates. In other works, vote would not be wasted even if it didn’t make it through the first round. As a result, AV additionally gives voters the chance to impact the initial
Voters choose one preferred candidate, and they mark an X next to the person on a ballot paper. The one who gets the most number of votes wins representation of the constituency. So, it is easy to count the votes and clear to see who wins. However, the results tend to favor the major parties, i.e. the Labor Party and the Conservatives, and disadvantage minority ones. To illustrate, the Liberal Democrats Party had never won more than 62 votes before 2005. Other small parties such as UKIP, BNP, etc have never won more than 10% of the total vote. In addition, over the past 50 years of British elections, the power shifts between the Conservatives and the Labor Party, and is never in the hands of the Lib Dams or other small parties. Thus, using FPTP method in UK elections is a clear discrimination against minority …show more content…
As for the 2010 election, fewer than 460,000 voters made the final decision. This was only 1.6% of the entire electorate. Recall the election results of 2005, 70% of the voters did not vote for the winning Labor Party. If there was a second round, those 70% of votes could be used to alter election outcomes. So, voters can use their vote again to appoint their second favorite candidates. In other works, vote would not be wasted even if it didn’t make it through the first round. As a result, AV additionally gives voters the chance to impact the initial