Paper 1 · 2019 · 30 marks
Using the source, evaluate the view that proportional representation would improve elections to the House of Commons.
Electoral Systems
Source
This source is adapted from a Hansard report of a debate in the House of Commons held in October 2017. More than 100,000 people had signed a petition calling for the introduction of proportional representation for elections to the Westminster parliament. Here are extracts from the speeches made by Steve Double MP (Conservative Party) and Caroline Lucas MP (Green Party).
Caroline Lucas MP (Green): PR would improve elections
FPTP is damaging the legitimacy of our system of governance. A winner-takes-all approach to elections promotes adversarial politics. It encourages each of the major parties to seek to defeat their opposition completely, negating the need for post-election cooperation. Policy is likely to change dramatically when governments change. Countries with proportional representation (PR) systems outperform those with FPTP systems; PR would be likely to encourage more people to vote. It is very hard to persuade people to vote when they live in so-called 'safe seats'. We would also improve the chances of electing a parliament that better reflects modern Britain.
Steve Double MP (Conservative): FPTP should be retained
Proportional representation will damage democracy by putting more power into the hands of parties. First-past-the-post (FPTP) invariably delivers strong and stable government. Votes are not wasted for we have seen turnout increase in recent times. It is clear and easy to understand. In addition it prevents extremist parties from gaining seats. There is a direct link between the MP and their constituency. The FPTP system enables us to exchange our strongly, passionately held views in the House of Commons. My party is committed to FPTP as the best system for this country.
Mark scheme: agreement
AO1: FPTP damages legitimacy and discourages turnout because of wasted vote.
AO2: Governments and MPs gain election with less than 50% of the vote and thus exercise majority power on a minority vote.
AO3: We can conclude that FPTP lacks a democratic mandate.
AO1: FPTP breeds adversarial politics and negates the need for compromise.
AO2: The Westminster Parliament is built on adversarial politics with a binary view of issues and causes.
AO3: We can reach a verdict that FPTP undermines consensus reducing the effectiveness of elections.
AO1: FPTP leads to a 'winner takes all' approach which delivers extremes of policy changes which damages the country.
AO2: Incoming governments are driven by changing their predecessors' work and setting off in constantly new directions.
AO3: We can reach a judgement that a strong economy and stable society require PR to provide the framework for this.
AO1: PR would encourage more people to vote and improve the chances of a more reflective Parliament.
AO2: FPP does not treat all votes as equal and deters many from voting, especially those who support minor parties.
AO3: We can conclude that multi-party politics does not equate with FPTP - a multicultural society is not served well by FPP.
Mark scheme: disagreement
AO1: PR would hand excessive power to parties.
AO2: This is because deals are made between parties after the election which can be undemocratic; leaders also control the order of the lists in some forms of PR.
AO3: We can conclude that PR would not improve elections as it would take power away from the people to parties.
AO1: FPTP delivers strong and stable government.
AO2: For decades with only a few minor blips FPTP has served the nation well in delivering single party stable governments.
AO3: We can reach a judgement that FPTP enhances elections as Governments are able to carry out their manifesto, held accountable at the next GE.
AO1: FPTP provides for a good MP-constituency link.
AO2: This is because constituency sizes are relatively small enabling constituents to have clear access to their representation.
AO3: We can conclude that having good access to your representative is a crucial factor in a representative democracy.
AO1: FPTP is clear and easy to understand and it keeps out extremists.
AO2: Few spoiled ballots show the clarity surrounding FPTP and it has an impressive record of preventing extremist parties gaining seats.
AO3: We can reach a verdict that more damage can be done to democracy by extremist parties if FPTP was to go.