Location, location, location is the famous phrase and it could not be more apparent than when it comes to the UK electorate and the electoral system used for UK General Elections. Due to the nature of First-Past-The-Post only a small select of constituencies known as swing seats or marginal seats determine which way the result actually goes.

Before I continue I cannot stress the importance of exercising your democratic right to vote. So please do vote do on the 8th June.

The UK for its General Elections uses an old, antiquated electoral system first used in 1802 called First-Past-The-Post (FPTP). FPTP is one of the oldest forms of elections with a simple one vote per person for one candidate to represent your local area. It’s elections and voting at it’s simplest. However the UK (United Kingdom) is not only the country to use FPTP, our friends in Canada, India and the United States* are amongst a few who also use the same electoral system. Under FPTP, a member of Parliament (MP) is elected by simply getting more votes than any other candidate. Simplicity seems to be King.

You could say that FPTP is electoral system at its simplest. In the UK it is a single member vote. One person, one vote. Simple and effective? Arguably yes but that discussion for another time. But does it provide a ‘fair’ result? I think not. Most constituencies in the UK are ‘safe seats’. Do these safe seats change from time-to-time yes, in a blue moon. But more often than not these safe seats do not change hands. My own constituency suffers from this. According to the BBC. Labour, the incumbent party received over 61% of the electoral vote back in 2015 (full marks for anyone who is able to guess the constituency). If you vote and support the incumbent candidate and party then you probably won’t be complaining. However if you do not support your local incumbent candidate this could lead you with a few electoral issues. Do you vote for the party and candidate you support knowing you will lose? Or do you vote for vote for your second or third choice candidate simply because that candidate has more of a chance of winning in your constituency.

I will encounter the issue that many voters face across the country and that is the ‘wasted vote’. As mentioned earlier, each constituency battle is done on a winner takes all method. If your candidate comes second, you lose and have no representation in Parliament. Even if it is only by a handful of votes! Go no further than asking the people of Gower. Where the Conservatives beat Labour by only 27 votes in 2015! One of the many examples where your individual vote does matter! ‘Get back to the point Will!’ you may be thinking. However as most of you know, most seats are not like Gower. Out of 650 seats in Parliament, roughly 110 are ‘marginal seats’. Therefore leaving most of the electorate inthe perilous position of voting for a candidate you know will lose or not vote for the first candidate of your choice. Which known as a ‘wasted vote’. According to the Electoral Reform Society, in the last General Election 74.4% of the electoral votes were wasted. In layman’s terms that is 22 million votes that “numerically had no influence on the outcome”. Obviously this is not good for any democratic process, especially for a Parliament that is meant to represent the people across the whole of the UK.

Another significant issue that much of the electorate encounters across the UK is tactical voting or sometimes known as strategic voting. As demonstrated earlier, tactical voting is when the voter supports another candidate over the more preferred candidate in order to prevent the most undesirable outcome. As a vast majority of constituencies are safe, this usually means that there little change between the incumbent parties. The Electoral Reform Society describes this as a ‘scourge’, forcing much of the electorate not to vote for the party of their preferred choice. It has come to the extent that many organisations such as; Tactical 2017, The Guardian, Business Insider and The Mirror amongst others have set up guides into how to tactically vote and who to vote for (usually in preference to prevent a Conservative victory). Tactical voting is set to be prominent again in this General Election, with the Huffington Post estimating that 1 in 5 voters are planning to vote tactically in this year’s general election. This is not healthy for any democracy and not good for the democratic engagement of the electorate.

The Liberal Democrats among other ‘smaller parties’ have long advocated for electoral reform. However with the AV (Alternative Vote) Referendum defeat back in 2011. Electoral reform does not seem to be on the menu in Westminster. Especially to politicians from the main parties who benefit from FPTP as it is a two-party electoral system.

Although FPTP produces a very clear electoral result and clear for the electorate to understand but in fact the results are far from proportionate. According to the Electoral Reform Society “First Past The Post is the worst possible system for electing our representatives”, due to the un-proportionality of votes into seats. In the 2015 General Election, the un-proportionality could not be more apparent than the results that UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) achieved. UKIP who came third in the vote share with 3,881,099 votes only gained 1 seat! With 12.6% of the vote share! I mean I am no fan or advocate of UKIP and it’s causes but such a poor votes to seat translation cannot be constructive and benefical for a representative Government and democracy itself.

However supporters and advocates of FPTP would argue that FPTP produces clear and stable results with the exception of 2010 with led to a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. The results are calculated in the evening of the election leaving with winner usually being known by the early hours of the morning and finally the official results being submitted the afternoon after polling day. Of course clear electoral results is obviously beneficial for the electorate. Having been a witness other electoral process, namely the local elections in Colombia in 2015 and looking at the polling card there. It was very hard to understand and which candidates to cross or not to cross due to the sheer amount of them! I can understand how the electorate was very confused in filling out the ballot and I would know! As I was there to help deal with it. I greatly came to appreciate the simplicity of FPTP.

Many supporters of FPTP would say that the un-proportionality of the electoral system is a necessary sacrifice for not only producing clear results for the electorate and producing a two-party system which produces stables governments but also minimising the extent of success in extremist parties in the UK. Most notably the BNP (British National Party) a far-right party were able to have electoral success by gaining two seats in the European Parliament in 2009 and three council seats in the local elections in the very same year. But were unable to gain electoral success in the General Elections simply due to the nature of FPTP compared more proportional electoral systems that the European Parliament and the UK local elections uses.

I know due to the nature of the UK electoral system for those affected sometimes it is difficult to decide to whether to ‘waste your vote’ or vote tactically. Whatever you do. Please vote, it is one of the few times to actually voice our opinion and excercise your democratic right.

Remember to vote on Thursday 8th June.

Thanks for reading.

William

Sources: BBC, Electoral Reform Society, Huffington Post, The Electoral Commission

*All US states bar Maine and Nebraska use FPTP for presidential elections.