Should FPTP continue to be used for elections to the House of Commons
Should FPTP continue to be used for elections to the House of Commons?
The first reason why FPTP should continue to be used for elections in the House of Commons is because it allows the public to hold their representatives accountable. This is seen as beneficial as it means that the government and members of parliament cannot just act in any way it wants. Without being able to hold representatives accountable, it undermines the whole system of democracy as the people cannot hold representatives responsible and will not have power to limit their actions. For instance, Oona King was voted out of office in during the 2005 elections. Her constituent was Bethnal Green and Bow and it consisted of a high percentage of Muslims. King supported the Iraq War and hence, she lost her seat to George Galloway of the Respect Party. George Galloway won 15,801 votes whilst Oona King obtained 14,978 votes. FPTP produces single-member constituencies thus; it is clear that each constituency has one representative and will hence hold specific representatives accountable. There are 650 members of parliament for each constituency. Therefore, since FPTP should be used for elections to the House of Commons, as there is only one MP per constituent, constituents know whom to hold accountable for their representation in the House of Commons.
In addition, another reason why FPTP should continue to be used for elections in the House of Commons is because it usually produces a strong, single party majority government. This is seen as advantageous because legislation can be passed easily as governments that have been elected will have legitimacy and authority in implementing policies and legislation. Due to the winner’s bonus, the FPTP’s single plurality system usually produces a single party majority government who therefore do not need much support from other parties in order to pass its proposed legislation. For example, the labour party governed with a majority of 413 out of 659 seats in
The first reason why FPTP should continue to be used for elections in the House of Commons is because it allows the public to hold their representatives accountable. This is seen as beneficial as it means that the government and members of parliament cannot just act in any way it wants. Without being able to hold representatives accountable, it undermines the whole system of democracy as the people cannot hold representatives responsible and will not have power to limit their actions. For instance, Oona King was voted out of office in during the 2005 elections. Her constituent was Bethnal Green and Bow and it consisted of a high percentage of Muslims. King supported the Iraq War and hence, she lost her seat to George Galloway of the Respect Party. George Galloway won 15,801 votes whilst Oona King obtained 14,978 votes. FPTP produces single-member constituencies thus; it is clear that each constituency has one representative and will hence hold specific representatives accountable. There are 650 members of parliament for each constituency. Therefore, since FPTP should be used for elections to the House of Commons, as there is only one MP per constituent, constituents know whom to hold accountable for their representation in the House of Commons.
In addition, another reason why FPTP should continue to be used for elections in the House of Commons is because it usually produces a strong, single party majority government. This is seen as advantageous because legislation can be passed easily as governments that have been elected will have legitimacy and authority in implementing policies and legislation. Due to the winner’s bonus, the FPTP’s single plurality system usually produces a single party majority government who therefore do not need much support from other parties in order to pass its proposed legislation. For example, the labour party governed with a majority of 413 out of 659 seats in