The Pros And Cons Of First Past The Post

First Past The is a system where ’the winner takes it all’. First Past The Post means the votes of many hard working citizens are completely disregarded, as due to the system coming second in a constituency gets you no seats in parliament. In a nation which exclaims how democratic it is, how can we have such an unfair voting system? Is it fair to have a constant two party race? Is it acceptable to have a system that pushes out smaller parties? There is a clear alternative to First The Post which has been adapted into the Scottish Parliament elections which is Proportional Representation. A proportional system such as the Additional Members System stops votes being wasted. This creates a government which represents the people accurately and so it it clear there is no better way for elections to take place. We cannot allow anymore
Firstly, some voters simply vote the party they believe will win even if they prefer another on the basis that they do not want their vote to be seen as ‘wasted’. Because of this media’s influence in voting grows as some voters will tend to believe the media's predictions as to who the leading contenders. Those candidates who receive the most media attention will probably be the most popular and thus most likely to be the top two. Moreover the system can also actively encourage votes against instead of for. For example entire campaigns have been embarked on trying to stop the Conservative Party winning seats. If the Conservatives hold a marginal seat, while Labour sit in second place, and Liberal Democrats in third. Voters of Liberal Democrats may vote Labour tactically as they would prefer the Labour Party as opposed to the Conservative Party. As a result of this we are voting for polices we do not agree with, a leader we do not like and ignoring who we truly want to vote for to work around the numerous problems of first past the