The first-past-the-post system and
proportional representation
The following text illustrates the
differences between the two fundamentally systems of electoral law, explains the advantages and
disadvantages of each system and addresses the consequences that electoral law
has upon the political system.
[Back
to top of page]
 |
Electoral
law and democracy
|
Introduction
(...) Two fundamentally different
systems have developed for the practical implementation of elections: The first-past-the-post system and proportional
representation. Seldom are these two electoral systems
implemented in a pure form, instead (...) they are often mixed. The process of
forming a political will as well as the political structure of a nation can be greatly
influenced by its system of electoral law, since inner-party order, the
relationship between parties and the relationship between the government and
parliament are all dependent on it. It is also true that certain
political traditions, historical situations and social conditions only allow for
certain systems of electoral law. Not every electoral system is capable of being
introduced into any nation. If a nation alters its electoral system without carefully
considering its specific social and political structure, it runs
the risk of jeopardizing the main function of elections. If the population does
not accept the electoral system and/or regards it as unfair, government formed
by popular vote will not be recognized as being legitimate by those voting
otherwise.
[Back
to top of page]
Proportional
representation: Advantages and disadvantages
Taking a brief look at the main differences
of the two systems should demonstrate the extent to which the political
style and structure of a community can be influenced by its system of electoral
law. Proportional representation is based on the principle that each party's
share of the seats in parliament is the same as its share of all the votes cast.
A party that achieves ten percent of the vote also gets ten percent of the
mandate. In this way parliament is a political snapshot of the electorate's opinion. All
minorities and all political programs are represented and are able to voice their
opinions in parliament. Proportional representation also makes it easier for new political parties to establish themselves, since even
parties only gaining a few votes across all constituencies might still gain one
percent of the overall vote when they are added up across the nation. And one
percent usually means seats in parliament. This serves in encouraging the
formation of new political parties and breathes fresh air into the political system, but
at the same time promotes splinter parties and narrowly based interest groups.
Indeed, proportional representation often leads to dismembered parliaments in
which weak coalition governments are formed with all their well-known leadership
weaknesses and crises.
[Back
to top of page]
Proportional representation gives
voters little say in the shape of a future government, since political parties are usually
reluctant to talk about the possible structure of a coalition prior to election
day.
And because all coalition members are as eager to take the praise for government
success as they are to blame other coalition members when things go wrong,
it's difficult for voters to ascertain which party has done well and which ones
haven't. Proportional representation also means that parliamentary candidates are
nominated by state or regional party conferences rather than by local party associations.
This leads to a situation in which the executive committee is able to lever
greater influence if necessary. Under proportional representation, the voter does not cast his/her vote
for a single constituency candidate, but rather for an individual party list on
which the candidates are listed in a particular sequence. Voters, then, do
not have an individual member of parliament for their constituency. On the other
hand, however, this does enable the executive to take into account all the party's factions and
to address a wider electorate when drawing up the list. In return for their
promised support, different pressure groups are also able to get their people's
names onto the list of candidates.
[Back
to top of page]
The first-past-the-post system: Advantages and disadvantages
In contrast to proportional representation,
the first-past-the-post system splits the entire electoral area into as many constituencies
as there are seats in parliament. The winning candidate is the one who manages
to gain either an absolute or relative majority of the votes. This usually means
that the winning candidate is a member of one of the large national parties,
which provide him/her with support. The main parties are held back from becoming
too concentrated on single issues. They have to
appear attractive for a large majority of the population and try to encompass as
many interests as possible, if they are to win a majority. The first-past-the-post system usually forces
parties' to exercise restraint in their political
programs and practical behavior, and to avoid extremes.
From an historical perspective the
first-past-the-post system and the two-party system are closely linked. While it
is true that the first-past-the-post-system cannot create a two-party system, it
does serve in maintaining and securing it. In circumstances such as these, the electorate
has the choice between two different government programs and two governmental
teams. Parliamentary elections tend to become government elections.
The winning party forms the government and can usually rely on a secure parliamentary
majority. This also makes it easy for the electorate to hold
the government responsible for its actions at the next election. A secure parliamentary
majority means that political success or failure can be clearly
attributed to the government, which is not able to blame other coalition
partners. The electorate's ability to influence the final shape of a government
and its leadership is one of the advantages of a two-party system stabilized by first-past-the-post system. The
first-past-the-post system also creates a relatively close relationship between parliament and
local constituencies and serves in anchoring MPs to a certain area, which in turn prevents
wide gaps appearing between the elected and the electorate. Lower party ranks also
have a great say in the selection of candidates, which is certainly desirable for the
internal democratization of the parties.
[Back
to top of page]
Nonetheless, the disadvantages of
the first-past-the-post system cannot be overlooked. The selection of
candidates according to local interests often means that some of society's minority groups
are, to all intents and purposes, not represented.
For instance under prevailing conditions it remains easier for women to enter parliament over a party list than to win directly a
constituency seat in an election.
Another disadvantage of the
first-past-the-post system is that only
the votes for the successful candidate are actually used and large numbers of
the electorate remain unrepresented. This system also has a habit of translating
a narrow majority of the overall vote into an over-proportioned parliamentary
majority. In England, for instance, the Conservative Party was
able to form a parliamentary majority of over 56 percent with only 38.2 percent
of the vote. One of the reasons for this is the way in which the constituencies are divided and the
difficulties involved in splitting them up equally. Constituency boundaries can also be set in such a way as to
favor or disfavor a particular party. "Constituency boundaries" also
presents an additional area in which manipulation is possible. The
first-past-the-post system also prevents minority groups, unless they happen to
be concentrated in one constituency, from being represented in parliament. The
creation of new political parties is virtually impossible. Moreover, government stability
is also endangered, if the election is very close and a "hung parliament" is
produced.
[Back
to top of page]
For the first-past-the-post system
to work it is important that the two largest parties are "broad churches"
and not fundamentally opposed to each other. Strongly opposing ideological beliefs
would subject society to a complete change in direction every time power changed
hands. There also has to be strong public consensus for a two-party
system stabilized by the first-past-the-post system to work. The public has to
see itself as sitting in one boat, and, indeed, the preparedness to tolerate
members of the opposing party rather than to view them as the enemy must be
widespread. The first-past-the-post system often leads to negative effects among
populations that are divided and in disagreement about basic political questions,
since inflexibility between opposing parties means a change of government is often not possible. The result is radicalization and
polarization rather than moderation. In cases such as this, the best way
forward is to attempt to modify the system of proportional representation (...).
It is difficult to reach a decision on which system is more
democratic simply by taking a look at them.
Depending on historical traditions, the party-political system in place and the
social conditions in a given society, one could come down on the side of either.
Electoral law forms a cornerstone of democracy for which no fixed general rules
exist. Democracy can be realized using a number of systems. At the end of the
day, the success of any system is measured against its ability to encourage
widespread political participation among the electorate while at the same time
enabling those elected to govern.
[Taken from: Waldemar Besson/Gotthard Jasper, Das Leitbild
der modernen Demokratie. Bauelemente einer freiheitlichen Staatsordnung, Bonn
1990]
[Back
to top of page]
