Advantages And Disadvantages Of Fptp

Reflection - 2

" The present system has clearly broken down. The results produced are not fair to any party, nor to any section of the community. In many cases they do not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities. All they secure is fluke representation, freak representation, capricious representation. "
This quote is a famous and popular statement made by Winston Churchill, the former Prime Minister of the UK. This statement is targeted on the FPTP (First-Past-The-Post), the general electoral system of the UK. This system is not only used in the UK, but also in most of the major and minor democratic countries across the world. The point at the issue is that FPTP is a faulty and vague electoral

Michael states that there are only some fundamental ideas that can be implemented easily. Therefore, it does not necessarily need any costly process to administer it. Michael also states that FPTP allows the voters to strongly convey their individual opinions upon which candidate should be selected and which party should form the government. Not only the voters, but also the candidates have many advantages. The representative candidates have a chance to build up a link with his constituency, the geographical area and its people. It allows the people to have a clear choice between two major parties competing in the elections. William believes that there are more disadvantages of FPTP than its advantages. Ethically and theoretically, a candidate must gain the majority of preference from the people. He is the representative of the common people. So, it is essential for him to be preferred the majority of the voters. But FPTP does not follow this principle. FPTP also effectively gives rise to the concept of tactical voting. In this case, voters often tend to not vote for the candidate of their choice but they rather vote against the candidate they dislike the most. Therefore, the reflection of the result is often not actual. Moreover, FPTP does not allow the smaller parties to have a fair and healthy competition. It also denies any fair representation for them. Stephen agrees with William at

A common understanding is reached: FPTP has both pros and cons. It can prove to be a successful system if it's reviewed and apprehended properly.
Both sides have presented valid and logical pints during the discussion. But the agreeing side could have elaborated the details more precisely, such as describing how gerrymandering plays a vital role in FPTP, or what are the potential substitutions for FPTP. Most of the other points are significant and relevant. The agreeing side has produced some major points like the disability of FPTP to give rise to small political parties.
In my opinion, FPTP is indeed a simple and effective electoral solution. But, it has a number of limitations. The participants have correctly discussed this issue and all agreed that the system needs some revision. My personal opinion might seem to be biased as I view this issue from the completely democratic viewpoint, where I strongly think that FPTP either needs to be abolished completely or it needs to adapt some qualities from other electoral systems. This is the only way to restore and maintain the democratic