1. Introduction
“The British electoral system is not a gamble.” (Butler, 194). This famous quotation by the British political scientist David E. Butler gives a first insight in how intricate and controversial the topic has been discussed. The quotation also shows that the British voting system never lacked criticism and the fact that Butler has to deny that the electoral system of his home country is ‘a gamble’ makes clear that also a lot of sarcasm was involved while judging it. All of this seems rather negative. However, in this paper it is not my aim to just condemn the electoral system of Britain, nor do I want to prove that it is a gamble. Yet, the severe criticism must have a reason and cannot be completely unfounded. A main argument of critics that is often discussed is a possible lack of democracy. Therefore I would like to examine in how far the British voting system can be reconciled with basic democratic principles.
To do so, it will be necessary to give a short overview about democracy and its main features. I also don’t want to neglect to talk about democracy as a political system. In accordance with the main topic, namely the electoral system, I will specifically talk about the competitive and consensus democracy because they are most suitable when it comes to discussing the two main voting systems, viz. proportional representation and majority voting.
As it has probably become clear already, I do not want to limit this paper to the British electoral system itself. To illustrate the discrepancy between the first-past-the-post system and the proportional representation, I will use the example of the Federal Republic of Germany. This country can be seen as a representative for a typical consensus democracy and in addition it is using the proportional representation quite successfully. By providing information about the common alternative system of voting, instead of just describing the system which is actually examined, it will hopefully become easier to judge the latter in the end.
Arguable is now, to what extent the British electoral system deserves to be criticised or even disapproved. Is it “unpredictable” and “bizarre” as Marco Evers claims? (cf. Evers, 84). Or does the long-lasting tradition of using the majority voting system prove once more that its advantages outweigh its weaknesses and that there should not be any worries concerning its democratic compatibility?
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Democracy
2.1 Definition of Democracy
2.2 Consensus Democracy
2.3 Competitive Democracy
3. Voting Systems
3.1 Majority Voting Systems using the Example of Great Britain
3.2 Porportional Representation using the Example of the Federal Republic of Germany
4. Majority Voting System and Democracy
4.1 Disadvantages of Majority Voting Systems
4.2 The Majority Voting System and its Compatibility with Democratic Principles
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Themes
The primary objective of this paper is to examine the compatibility of the British majority voting system with fundamental democratic principles, using a comparative analysis with the German proportional representation system to highlight existing deficits and potential for electoral reform.
- Theoretical foundations of consensus versus competitive democracy.
- Comparative analysis of first-past-the-post and proportional representation systems.
- The impact of majority voting on parliamentary representation and minority interests.
- The phenomenon of tactical voting and its distortion of the democratic will.
- Evaluation of the British two-party system in the context of democratic legitimacy.
Excerpt from the Book
4.2 Disadvantages of Majority Voting System
Even though the first-past-the-post system has a long-lasting and successful tradition in Britain, there were always critics who argued that an electoral reform is not only needed, but necessary in order to avoid the “present unfairness” (cf. Kavanagh, 98). Consequently, the majority voting system includes several demerits and weak points which shall be explained now in detail.
“One of the main virtues of the British electoral system is that it produces clear parliamentary majorities; one of its main weaknesses is that it produces excessive parliamentary majorities.” (Butler, 202). This quotation shows that one of the main advantages of the majority voting system is at the same time one of the main disadvantages. Indeed, it does produce clear results in parliament and this is supposed to lead to stable governments. However, as mentioned in paragraph 3.2 a large number of votes remains unconsidered, Butler even calls it a “waste” of votes (cf. ibid, 190). Inevitably, this must lead to a lack of representation of smaller parties and at the same time, to an overrepresentation of the winning party, at least to a certain extent (cf. Hübner, 98). As long as it is possible that a party, which does not win the majority of the total number of votes, still wins the election, there will be an underrepresentation of votes and thus of interests.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter outlines the critical discourse surrounding the British electoral system and establishes the research goal of evaluating its democratic compatibility.
2. Democracy: This section defines democracy and distinguishes between the consensus-based model used in Germany and the competitive Westminster model found in Britain.
3. Voting Systems: The chapter provides a comparative overview of the proportional representation system used in Germany and the majority voting system (first-past-the-post) utilized in Great Britain.
4. Majority Voting System and Democracy: This section analyzes the inherent weaknesses of the majority voting system, focusing on representation issues and the challenges of tactical voting.
5. Conclusion: The concluding chapter synthesizes the findings and discusses the necessity of electoral reform in light of recent political developments and the emergence of hung parliaments.
Keywords
British electoral system, Majority voting system, First-past-the-post, Proportional representation, Democracy, Westminster model, Consensus democracy, Competitive democracy, Tactical voting, Parliamentary majority, Electoral reform, Political representation, Minority interests, Hung parliament.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines whether the British electoral system, known as the majority voting system or "first-past-the-post," is truly compatible with basic democratic principles.
Which specific voting systems are compared in the study?
The study compares the British majority voting system with the German system of proportional representation to highlight the differences in democratic outcomes.
What is the primary research question?
The author seeks to determine if the British voting system can be reconciled with basic democratic principles or if it suffers from fundamental flaws regarding representation.
Which scientific methodology does the paper employ?
The paper uses a comparative analysis, evaluating theoretical definitions of democracy alongside practical case studies of the electoral processes in Great Britain and the Federal Republic of Germany.
What topics are discussed in the main body of the paper?
The main body covers definitions of democracy, the characteristics of consensus and competitive democratic models, the mechanics of different voting systems, and the specific disadvantages and democratic deficits of the British system.
Which terms best describe the work?
Key terms include electoral reform, democratic legitimacy, tactical voting, and the analysis of political systems in Great Britain and Germany.
How does the "first-past-the-post" system affect smaller parties?
The system tends to disadvantage smaller parties because it leads to a "waste" of votes and makes it difficult for minority interests to achieve parliamentary representation.
What role does "tactical voting" play in the British system?
Tactical voting occurs when voters choose a party they do not prefer to avoid wasting their vote, which the author argues distorts the true democratic will of the populace.
How does a "hung parliament" influence the author's argument?
A hung parliament serves as empirical evidence that the main parties are struggling to maintain traditional levels of influence, reinforcing the author's call for a reassessment of the electoral system.
- Citar trabajo
- Sarah Ruhnau (Autor), 2010, The British Electoral System - A Demoratic One?, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/160121
