**There are aspects of First Past the Post which are undemocratic and could be solved by introducing a proportional voting system instead. However, it is also important to acknowledge the flaws of proportional voting and the strengths of FPTP** _Strengths of FPTP_ • FPTP is a majoritarian system that tends to lead to ‘majoritarian representation’ where the result is that one party will have gained more than 50% of the seats. Therefore, strong and stable majority governments are formed. • Evidently, since World War 2 there has only been 3 minority governments and 1 coalition. In comparison, the [Northern Ireland Assembly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Assembly) uses the Single Transferable Vote which often creates coalition governments. Consequently, the Assembly collapsed after policy disagreements with the different parties in power, it remained suspended between January 2017 to January 2020. • Moreover, FPTP reduces the support of extremist parties and prevents these from gaining power. For example, support for the [BNP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party) in the UK was greatly curbed as FPTP prevented them from translating popular support into seats. • FPTP is simple and quick, contrastingly proportional voting systems like [Single Transferrable Vote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote) is quite complicated. _Weaknesses of FPTP_ • However, FPTP is undemocratic as it produces governments and MPs that have been elected on a simple majority (you only have to secure the most votes, so an MP could lack the support of 50% of the constituents yet still be elected). For example, in the [2015 general election](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results) 319 MPs were elected on less than 50% of the vote. • Therefore, governments can also be elected on a simple majority. For example, in 2015 a majority Conservative was produced on only 36.9% of the vote. • FPTP suppresses third-party support; for example, UKIP gained 12.6% of the popular vote yet as they didn’t have a strong geographic support base this only translated into 1 seat.

**I ultimately think that proportional representation, despite its faults, should replace FPTP in the UK.** • Using [proportional representation in the UK]( https://www.uk-engage.org/2013/08/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-using-a-proportional-representation-pr-electoral-system/), would be much more democratic than what we currently have. Rather than being stuck with a system that excludes smaller parties from having a say, moving towards a system of proportional representation would stop a repeated cycle where votes are wasted. • My [main issue with First Past The Post]( https://www.uk-engage.org/2013/06/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-using-the-first-past-the-post-voting-system-2/), is that it often doesn’t allow for new candidates to stand for positions in government. To take the example of my constituency, I have had the same Member of Parliament since I can remember. More specifically, since 2010 (_I was 9_!!). So as long as I have been interested and active in politics, my local area has only ever seen one representative in government because this country uses a system which facilitates the existence of _‘safe seats’_. I really don’t like the idea that constituencies across the UK stay the same purely based on party allegiance, rather than through any acknowledgement of what is happening more broadly in the party. • The concept of ‘safe seats’ can also reduce voter-turnout due to a public reluctance to cast a vote that probably won’t have a difference to the overall result. Obviously, the problem with this is that voters become disengaged and fail to participate in the democratic process because they can’t see how it’s worth their time or effort. This is a real problem, and one of the reasons I’m so passionate about getting younger people involved in voting. • Adopting a system of proportional representation, would allow the public to feel as though their votes count and their voices have been heard. I think this would ultimately benefit voter turnout and see more people become actively engaged in exercising their democratic right. As far as I’m concerned, although it has faults, proportional representation is the fairest way to elect a leader in the UK.

**First Past the Post electoral system is a plurality voting method that is used by about a third of the worlds’ countries.** In the UK, there are 650 constituencies with a local election each. On election day voters receive a ballot paper with a list of candidates (each party has one candidate in each area). Voters then pick their preferred candidate, and these votes are then translated into seats in the Houses of Parliament. This tends to generate a two-party system as smaller parties, without a strong geographical support base, struggle to translate their votes into seats. [FPTP](https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/first-past-the-post/) has therefore been criticised as smaller parties do not gain a fair representation. Also, governments can be elected on less than 50% of the vote, raising the question of whether FPTP produces legitimate and representative governments. Consequently, some people argue that FPTP should be replaced by a proportional voting system. In [2011](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum) there was a referendum on whether the [Alternative Vote System](https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/alternative-vote/) should be used instead, but only 32% voted in favour of this. Other than this, there has been little headway in mainstream politics to introduce proportional voting to UK general elections.

**The current system is not a democratic one…** - As a country [we are very committed to the idea of democracy](https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-31/democracy/what-do-british-people-think-of-democracy.aspx), and yet the system we currently use does not truly reflect the will of the people. I think our ‘democratic’ electoral system could be said to be undemocratic for two main reasons: 1) Many people turn to tactical voting, voting for a candidate that they wouldn’t normally support to prevent another from winning a seat. This means people have to rely heavily on predictions that aren’t always accurate, and that their favourite candidates are not reflected in election results. 2) A party that the majority of people did not vote for can be elected, just because they have a majority of seats. - The most common criticism of proportional representation is that it creates unstable governments, with critics citing [Italy as an example](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cszl4y). However [40/43 countries in Europe use some form of proportional representation to elect their MP’s.](https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/which-european-countries-use-proportional-representation/). Of these, Italy seems to be the main example used by critics of this system, suggesting there are [other factors] (https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-do-elections-work-in-italy/) besides proportional representation which contribute to its instability. The bottom line is that our voting system is not functioning in a democratic way, which should not be dismissed. Who knows how many more people would vote, (making the system even more democratic), if they felt their voices were being heard?

We have objective, factual answers about how accurate or fair different voting systems are. We already know the answer to this question. Systems like First-Past-The-Post were invented to be as simple as possible with as few people as possible. Back in the day, everything was written down, sent by courier on horseback, and hand-counted. Only under those conditions would such a system be justified, and only because it is better than no representation whatsoever. Now we have the computers, cars, and the internet. The questionnaire on "isidewith" is far more advanced than any election system. You could have people answer questions on there, have it create agree/disagree weights, have those weights apply as credit/discredit towards a candidate, and overall credits could be added up. The calculation across all the data would take seconds. The slowest part would be the ping time. At the very least, some sort of ranked-choice system would be phenomenally better at representing the people. In fact, I would argue that the only reason to avoid such systems is if you deliberately want the people to not be accurately represented, such as Gerrymandering or the Electoral College in the US. In countries that include newer methods, they are often able to make representation more direct. For instance, Switzerland has quarterly referendums in which voters can vote directly on specific bills and policies. The US insists on keeping theirs compatible with horseback. I don't know as much about the UK system, but I'd imagine it isn't too far off.