This House would adopt proportional representation

First past the post (FPTP) often results in a party without majority support being able to dominate parliament. Minority parties, such as the Green party and UKIP (in the UK), which can win 5-10% or so of the vote all over the country, can fail to win a single seat. In the UK 2010 general election, UKIP received 919,546 votes across the country, but not a single seat (BBC News, UK 2010 general election results). Parties with a uniform vote across the country are punished unfairly. Thus in Singapore’s general election of 2011 the National Solidarity Party contested 24 seats and won 39.25% of the valid votes across the wards it contested yet still failed to win any seats.(Wikipedia, Singaporean general election, 2011) Theoretically parties could win huge numbers of votes, potentially up to 49% in every constituency, without ever getting any representation in parliament. As such FPTP favours parties that appeal to local issues or to particular segments of the population these parties that are losing out are likely to be those parties that either appeal to a broad segment of the population or whose support is based upon an issue that affects everyone. Furthermore, in the UK 2010 general election, two thirds of MPs were elected without receiving a majority of the votes in their constituency (Lodge, 2011). This suggests that most people are being represented by people they didn’t vote for.

As there are many different forms of proportional representation some of them will be fairer than others. Implementing AV for example may help sort out the problem of MPs not receiving a majority in their constituency as they will now need to receive 50% of the vote in order to be elected. Yet it will do nothing for the other two problems identified. Minority parties are still unlikely to get any seats and parties with their vote uniformly spread across the country will still be punished. AV in both cases still favours geographically centered parties and still favors the top two parties over any smaller one as the small parties will drop out as the ballots are counted.

Adversarial democratic systems such as the United States, Britain and Australia have been becoming increasingly dysfunctional with politics simply being a shouting match. Coalition governments lead to cooperation and compromise between parties.(Woldring, 2011) Governments which are forced to acknowledge a wide range of public opinion are less likely to introduce policies which victimise minorities or ride roughshod over public opinion for ideological reasons; for example, the poll tax in the UK, 1988-92. Empirically, countries with PR systems, such as Germany, show that great prosperity can result from the policies of such governments.

Cooperation and compromise often does not happen and acknowledging a wide range of public opinion is the main reason why they cant compromise. Firstly, they frequently won’t agree, which will lead to tortuously slow progress or even to having no government for the country. This happened after the general election in Belgium in 2010, when the record was broken for the time taken to form a new democratic government after an election (The Telegraph, ‘Belgium wins Guinness World Record for political impasse’). This occurred because none of the parties are willing to compromise over election promises and yet do not want to have to fight another election. However if a government is to be formed the parties involved will have to make compromises and resulting in tearing up some of their promises, betraying those who voted for them. The alternative is the expense of going to the country again, with no guarantee of a different result.(DW-world.de, 2011)

PR results in more engagement in politics as every vote counts (CPA/Wilton Park conference, ‘How can Parliamentarians best re-engage the public?’). Political participation is good and we should care about the low voter turnout in elections that has been caused by first past the post. Surveys show that that those who vote are more engaged in the community in other ways and have better personal wellbeing. Research in Switzerland has shown that voting does make people happier as well as being better informed citizens. The higher the stake the person has, and the more likely their vote is to count the more effort they will make to find out the facts so as to make informed choices.(Marks et al., 2005,  p5-6)

There is no reason to assume that there will be an increase in political engagement. Votes will simply not count in different ways. If there are more coalitions, people could feel their vote doesn’t count even more strongly, as they will see that the parties they vote for change their policies once in government. What is the point in voting for a platform if the party that is pledging to fulfil these promises is simply going to drop them as soon as the election is over and the negotiations begin?

All political parties have seats that they consider safe and unlikely to lose. If a person in an inner city constituency that has a strong Labour history, wishes to vote for someone other than Labour, then their vote is effectively null and void. Labour will win a majority however they vote. The fact that the seat is so safe means that there is effectively very little effect people can have, resulting in thousands of people's vote being wasted and having no effect when it comes to forming a government. In the 2010 UK general election the result was decided by less than 460,000 voters in only 111 constituencies. This gives an unfair amount of political influence to a tiny minority of the electorate while making the majority’s votes close to worthless.(Miliband, 2011)

If seats are safe, that is because people are continuing to vote for a party that they are satisfied with. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible for politicians to lose safe seats if the electorate is no longer happy with them; for example, in 2008, the Scottish National Party (SNP) won Glasgow East, one of Labour’s safest seats (BBC News, ‘SNP stuns Labour in Glasgow East’). 

In almost every constituency the number of people who do not vote outnumbers the vote of the winning party. This means if those who don’t vote all got out and voted the election could go any way, they could elect in a fringe party if voting together. So look at Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, one of the safest seats in the country, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s seat. In 2010 Labour won with 65.2% of the vote,(Electoral Calculus, 2010) with 29559 labour votes compared to 6550 SNP a majority of 23009.(Wells, 2010) However in this seat turnout was only 62.2% that means that 27863 people did not vote, considerably more than voted for Labour. If they voted together for someone else those who do not vote could always throw out the party in power. No seat is therefore really a safe seat, they are safe because who believe their vote is not worthwhile do not bother to vote when in reality if they did they could make a difference. Indeed in the Scottish elections of 2011 the SNP managed to take a large part of this same seat.(Vote 2011, 2011)

First past the post (FPTP) often results in a party without majority support being able to dominate parliament. Minority parties, such as the Green party and UKIP (in the UK), which can win 5-10% or so of the vote all over the country, can fail to win a single seat. In the UK 2010 general election, UKIP received 919,546 votes across the country, but not a single seat (BBC News, UK 2010 general election results). Parties with a uniform vote across the country are punished unfairly. Thus in Singapore’s general election of 2011 the National Solidarity Party contested 24 seats and won 39.25% of the valid votes across the wards it contested yet still failed to win any seats.(Wikipedia, Singaporean general election, 2011) Theoretically parties could win huge numbers of votes, potentially up to 49% in every constituency, without ever getting any representation in parliament. As such FPTP favours parties that appeal to local issues or to particular segments of the population these parties that are losing out are likely to be those parties that either appeal to a broad segment of the population or whose support is based upon an issue that affects everyone. Furthermore, in the UK 2010 general election, two thirds of MPs were elected without receiving a majority of the votes in their constituency (Lodge, 2011). This suggests that most people are being represented by people they didn’t vote for.

As there are many different forms of proportional representation some of them will be fairer than others. Implementing AV for example may help sort out the problem of MPs not receiving a majority in their constituency as they will now need to receive 50% of the vote in order to be elected. Yet it will do nothing for the other two problems identified. Minority parties are still unlikely to get any seats and parties with their vote uniformly spread across the country will still be punished. AV in both cases still favours geographically centered parties and still favors the top two parties over any smaller one as the small parties will drop out as the ballots are counted.

Adversarial democratic systems such as the United States, Britain and Australia have been becoming increasingly dysfunctional with politics simply being a shouting match. Coalition governments lead to cooperation and compromise between parties.(Woldring, 2011) Governments which are forced to acknowledge a wide range of public opinion are less likely to introduce policies which victimise minorities or ride roughshod over public opinion for ideological reasons; for example, the poll tax in the UK, 1988-92. Empirically, countries with PR systems, such as Germany, show that great prosperity can result from the policies of such governments.

Cooperation and compromise often does not happen and acknowledging a wide range of public opinion is the main reason why they cant compromise. Firstly, they frequently won’t agree, which will lead to tortuously slow progress or even to having no government for the country. This happened after the general election in Belgium in 2010, when the record was broken for the time taken to form a new democratic government after an election (The Telegraph, ‘Belgium wins Guinness World Record for political impasse’). This occurred because none of the parties are willing to compromise over election promises and yet do not want to have to fight another election. However if a government is to be formed the parties involved will have to make compromises and resulting in tearing up some of their promises, betraying those who voted for them. The alternative is the expense of going to the country again, with no guarantee of a different result.(DW-world.de, 2011)

PR results in more engagement in politics as every vote counts (CPA/Wilton Park conference, ‘How can Parliamentarians best re-engage the public?’). Political participation is good and we should care about the low voter turnout in elections that has been caused by first past the post. Surveys show that that those who vote are more engaged in the community in other ways and have better personal wellbeing. Research in Switzerland has shown that voting does make people happier as well as being better informed citizens. The higher the stake the person has, and the more likely their vote is to count the more effort they will make to find out the facts so as to make informed choices.(Marks et al., 2005,  p5-6)

There is no reason to assume that there will be an increase in political engagement. Votes will simply not count in different ways. If there are more coalitions, people could feel their vote doesn’t count even more strongly, as they will see that the parties they vote for change their policies once in government. What is the point in voting for a platform if the party that is pledging to fulfil these promises is simply going to drop them as soon as the election is over and the negotiations begin?

All political parties have seats that they consider safe and unlikely to lose. If a person in an inner city constituency that has a strong Labour history, wishes to vote for someone other than Labour, then their vote is effectively null and void. Labour will win a majority however they vote. The fact that the seat is so safe means that there is effectively very little effect people can have, resulting in thousands of people's vote being wasted and having no effect when it comes to forming a government. In the 2010 UK general election the result was decided by less than 460,000 voters in only 111 constituencies. This gives an unfair amount of political influence to a tiny minority of the electorate while making the majority’s votes close to worthless.(Miliband, 2011)

If seats are safe, that is because people are continuing to vote for a party that they are satisfied with. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible for politicians to lose safe seats if the electorate is no longer happy with them; for example, in 2008, the Scottish National Party (SNP) won Glasgow East, one of Labour’s safest seats (BBC News, ‘SNP stuns Labour in Glasgow East’). 

In almost every constituency the number of people who do not vote outnumbers the vote of the winning party. This means if those who don’t vote all got out and voted the election could go any way, they could elect in a fringe party if voting together. So look at Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, one of the safest seats in the country, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s seat. In 2010 Labour won with 65.2% of the vote,(Electoral Calculus, 2010) with 29559 labour votes compared to 6550 SNP a majority of 23009.(Wells, 2010) However in this seat turnout was only 62.2% that means that 27863 people did not vote, considerably more than voted for Labour. If they voted together for someone else those who do not vote could always throw out the party in power. No seat is therefore really a safe seat, they are safe because who believe their vote is not worthwhile do not bother to vote when in reality if they did they could make a difference. Indeed in the Scottish elections of 2011 the SNP managed to take a large part of this same seat.(Vote 2011, 2011)

Typically under PR, no one party gains a majority of the popular vote, so coalition governments have to be formed often between four or more parties. This tends to produce unstable governments, changing as parties leave or join the governing coalition, and frequent elections. Governments are unable to put a clear, positive legislative agenda in place over several years or act decisively in time of crisis. Compare this to the strong governing majorities produced by FPTP, such as the Conservatives in the 1980s in the UK, which allowed them to push through unpopular but necessary policies, such as tackling trade unions and reducing inflation.

A lot of successful countries use PR, so clearly it doesn’t lead to instability. In particular coalitions don’t always mean weak government. For example, Germany uses PR and has coalitions, yet is one of the strongest economies in the world and a significant power within Europe. Furthermore, Canada, India and the UK use FPTP and all have had coalitions. The UK coalition has so far proven to be both strong and radical. Michael Portillo, a former Conservative Minister of Defence has argued "They have been more radical on deficit reduction than say Margaret Thatcher was, but on top of doing that very difficult fiscal adjustment, they are also reformed schools, health, welfare, and pensions - areas where Margaret Thatcher didn't care to tackle."(Today, 2011)

The assumption that Proportional Representation leads to coalition also needs to be examined. Australia has for decades had strong single party government under the Alternative Vote.

Coalition government is actually unfair, as small parties with only a few percent of support nationally can hold the balance of power. This can result in them being able to force through unpopular or sectarian policies with no national mandate as a price for their support in parliament; for example, the Dutch coalition lost its majority in 2011, meaning it may have to rely on the support of the SGP, a very small conservative Christian party that does not even allow women to be members (Financial Times, ‘Dutch Coalition loses Senate majority).

Particularly when there is only one potential small party that could be a coalition partner for the biggest party(s) that small party potentially holds a lot more power than their number of seats in parliament would imply. When either of the main parties could form a government the small party can negotiate with both to get the best deal possible. And once in government they can threaten to walk out if they do not get their way on the issues that matter to them.

Junior partners are by definition junior. It is the biggist party in the coalition that gets the top job; President or Prime Minister while the minor party has to make do with much more junior roles – the Foreign Ministry has been popular in Germany. In the UK Conservative-Liberal democrat coalition the senior partner the conservatives hold all the big offices: Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Office and Home Office. Even if they have to compromise on some issues it is the senior partner that is setting the government agenda.

PR results in less engagement in politics as voters do not get what they voted for – instead post-election deals between the parties create coalitions which do not feel bound by manifesto promises. In order to create coalitions there is a need for parties to be flexible on their manifestos especially where they contradict each other. As elections seldom result in all the parties in a governing coalition leaving power, in practice accountability is blurred and voters feel alienated from the political process. In addition, many PR systems are very complex and off-putting for voters.

On the contrary having several manifestos used by a coalition actually means that there are many more people who get some of the policies they voted for passed. Under FPTP only a minority has ever voted for the manifesto that wins and gets implemented. If there is a coalition created by PR then more than 50% of the electorate will be getting a large amount of the policies they voted for implemented.

The whole issue of manifesto promises also makes the assumption that parties always stick to them when they get into power. This is not the case even under single party government. Election promises are often not implemented as politicians are simply using them to win an election, they may realise that the policy will not form the basis of a sensible government policy, or be too politically difficult to implement. Creation of a democratically elected House of Lords was in every New Labour manifesto, yet after three terms in power was at best half complete.(Summers, Labour’s attempts to reform the House of Lords)

Most PR systems would result in a break between the constituency and parliament. It is important that there is a single MP that represents a particular area. Having constituencies means that every citizen feels that they have a personal representative in parliament. Much of the work of an MP is constituency business, resolving problems encountered by constituents and raising the particular concerns of their geographical area with the government. The importance of this link can be shown in the difference in feeling towards individual’s own representative and the parliament as a whole. In 2010 there was a dissatisfaction in parliament as a whole of 38% whereas only 16% were dissatisfied with the job of their own MP.(Hansard Society, Audit of Political Engagement 7, p.29, p.88)

A proportional electoral system is more likely to return seats for smaller parties. Amongst these smaller parties, it is likely that we will find parties on either extreme of the left-right spectrum. The British National Party campaigned for PR for this reason (Channel 4 Fact Check, ‘Would AV help or hinder the BNP?’). Potentially even more extreme parties, such as the English Defence League, could get members of parliament under some proportional systems. It is not beneficial to the country to have extremist groups like this in parliament.