The Soundness of Democracy and the Role of Elections
The primary metrics for the soundness of democracy in the modern day societies include the ability to host free, fair, and open elections whereby the citizens cast secret votes to choose their preferred leaders to achieve consented leadership through the electoral process. The governments' accountability partially judges all parliamentary and presidential democratic systems to the electorate (Couture, 2014). It is, therefore, imperative to note that different democracies across the world rely on national elections as a way of choosing their leaders. As such, there exist dint voting systems, all of which apply different mechanisms to determine the winner in any national elections contest. Among the various election, systems are the First-Past-the-Post and the proportional election systems which operate on different criteria to determine the winning candidate in national elections. In the former, the candidate who garners the highest number of votes in the voting jurisdiction is declared the winner and takes the seat and all the other votes are disregarded, while in the latter, the elective seats are allocated on prorate basis to the political parties depending on the number or percentage of votes received (Wilkinson, 2018). This paper will offer an in-depth analysis of the proportional and the FPTP voting systems in a bid to compare both systems and justify that FPTP is marred by massive limitations that disqualify it from being the best electoral system for national elections. Specifically, the paper will offer an objective justification for the proportional electoral systems by listing out its advantages as well as the limitations of the FPTP election systems.
The Advantages of Proportional Electoral Systems
Unlike the FPTP election systems where the votes are cast for individual candidates, votes in the proportional voting systems are cast for specific political parties, after which the elective positions are allocated to the parties by the total votes earned. Among the primary advantages of the proportional election systems which sharply contrast with the FPTP systems is the primary focus on the recognition and inclusion of the minority citizens while the latter is centered on the majority vote (Norris, 1997). As such, FPTP is limited in the minority voices’ representation since the candidate with the majority votes takes the leadership position while the rest of the votes are disregarded. On the other hand, proportional systems are not centered on individual candidates, but parties; and the elective seats are shared on pro-rata basis according to the proportion of votes earned by each party. It can, therefore, be argued that the proportional systems of elections are reliable drivers of democratic leadership since all people are equitably represented in leadership. FPTP, on the other hand, creates a huge risk for the establishment of autocratic leadership regimes whereby the minority voices are significantly ignored (Norris, 1997).
Economic and Socio-Political Impacts
It is also worth noting that the FPTP electoral systems tend to cause adverse effects on the socio-political development of a country due to the absence of the balance of checks maintained in proportional electoral systems. The winner-takes-it-all scenario posited by FPTP creates a huge potential for the incumbent leadership to manipulate national or regional resources as well as abusing power (Adjei, 2013). Proportional election systems ensure that all voices are well-represented in national leadership while the FPTP systems only assign leadership to the most popular candidates. As such, the leadership elected in FPTP could result in poor practices since their actions are not subject to any check by the minority voices. The proportional systems, on the other hand, ensure that all matters of policy and development are well-deliberated by the majority and minority voices; thus increasing the guarantee for good governance. Service delivery to the people is also poor in FPTP as a result of the huge burden placed on the elected leaders to serve a huge population size; which at times leads to official neglect of some members of the society (Adjei, 2013). Proportional electoral systems give all political parties an opportunity to participate in all matters of policy and governance, thus minimizing the chances of resource misuse and abuse of power by the incumbent leadership.
The Adverse Effects of FPTP Systems
As evidenced in many parts of the world where FPTP is practiced, the method of electing leaders results into other adverse effects such as “ethnicization” of political factions as well as a zero-sum game that often intensifies the determination of all political candidates to win at all costs. The win or lose situation created by the FPTP is often associated with acute polarization of the specific countries; thus creating favorable environments for conflicts and violence as the competing sides scramble for the top seats (Adjei, 2013). The outcome of such a polarized country is ethnopolitical clashes which lead to bloodshed, deaths, and the destruction of massive wealth. On the other hand, the proportional elections' system creates a peaceful coexistence between the competing parties since all of them are assured of some position; proportionate to the number of votes earned as long as they meet the required threshold. Therefore, the proportional elections’ systems are associated with the peaceful coexistence in a nation, thus creating a favorable environment for political, social, and economic progress (UK Engage, 2013). The proportional systems are, therefore, advantageous over the FPTP since they eliminate the possibilities of the outrageous results of political polarization in a nation.
The Importance of Inclusiveness and Representation
Since FPTP results in an implied pluralistic regime, it renders many highly skilled politicians out of leadership; thus denying the particular nations the ability to utilize such skills in the country’s development and other policy affairs. Since the winner takes the leadership in FPTP, the losing candidates have no place in leadership, implying that all their expertise goes down the drain; thus depriving the nation such a resource. However, the proportional election systems ensure that all prospective political leaders are present in the leadership, thus have opportunities to inject their skills to the national development agendas (Adjei, 2013). Moreover, the proportional election systems offer reasonable flexibility in governance; which is inexistent in the FPTP systems (Lundberg, 2013). The FPTP systems, on the other hand, offer a high level of rigidity as posited by the existence of dominant political parties. It can also be argued that the FPTP national voting systems often discourage the minority voters; thus reducing the number of voter turnout, unlike the proportional system which reiterates the power in numbers, thus encouraging every voter to take part in the national elections. In the former, only the majority vote counts while the minority vote is disregarded; yet in the latter, all votes count. Also, the proportional system’s premise of equity in the allocation of elective seats encourages the minority groups such as women to take part in leadership.
The Fairness and Stability of Proportional Electoral Systems
As a result of its inclusiveness, the proportional system of elections as advantageous in that it creates a stable foundation for the establishment of an impartial and just leadership in any country that adopts it. The fairness and justice aspects of the proportional election systems lay in the fact that single vote is equally significant and the proportional allocation of leadership positions among the political parties provides an equal representation of the voters' desires. The scenario sharply contrasts with the FPTP in which only the dominant and successful candidate assumes leadership; compelling the minority voters to subscribe to their ideologies and leadership styles. It can, therefore, be argued that the FPTP voting system compromises the principles of democracy by neglecting the plight of the minority votes while assigning all the power to the most influential candidates. On the contrary, the proportional elections’ systems offer the ideal foundation for the creation and sustenance of a democratic leadership whereby every vote is critical. Another great advantage of the proportional elections system is the ability to significantly reduce voter apathy among the electorate in a country (UK Engage, 2013). Since all voters are aware of the value attached to their votes, they will be passionate about the voting exercise unlike in the FPTP systems whereby the minority voters are always dissuaded from voting due to the winner-takes-it-all situation which always favors the majority. The representativeness of the elected leaders in the proportional systems is also higher than that of the FPTP systems because the minority and the majority are included I the leadership (UK Engage, 2013). Also, proportional representation is critical for the maintenance of government continuity and ensures unbiased policy-making as a result of the more significant consensus required; unlike the FPTP systems which are characterized by rampant bias in policy-making and governance.
Limitations of the FPTP System and Conclusion
In conclusion, despite the fact that the FPTP systems of representation or voting are often applied to some nations, it can be argued that FPTP is not the best system for national elections since it flaunts majority if not all the principles of democracy. It must be noted that democracy advocates for the equal representation of all people in the community; minority and majority alike. However, the FPTP system of national elections creates a zero-sum situation whereby the winner takes it all, and the minorities are disregarded. It is, therefore, imperative to argue that the FPTP system of national elections exposes a country to a high risk of an authoritarian regime whereby those in power can engage in the misuse of resources as well as abuse of power. Moreover, FPTP exposes a country to divisionalism where the opposing political factions engage in outrageous activities in a bid to win the political seats; a situation which leads to the ethnicization of politics and conflicts. Such conflicts often result in massive injuries, deaths, and destruction of property as warring sides clash over political power. Overall, the FPTP election system offers the most unfair mechanism of selecting the leadership of any country and tends to overlook the principles of democracy. The system sharply contrasts with the proportional system which ensures that every vote counts and the minorities’ voices are equally represented in leadership. Therefore, FPTP is not the best system for national elections as a result of its numerous shortcomings as well as the unfairness in metes out on the minorities.
References
Adjei, J. (2013). A Comparative Analysis of Ghana 's First-Past-thePost (FPTP) Electoral System and the Proportional Representation (PR) System. Journal Of Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective, 8(1). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5671/336b163b761f4477fed69f30bd5f8f54d6ce.pdf
Couture, L. (2014). Proportional Representation: Redeeming the Democratic Deficit. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 19(1). Retrieved from https://www.innovation.cc/discussion-papers/19_1_11_couture_proportional-representation.pdf
Lundberg, T. (2013). UK electoral systems: are they all flawed?. Politics Review, 23(2).
Norris, P. (1997). Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian and Mixed Systems. International Political Science Review, 18(3), 297-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251297018003005
UK Engage. (2013). Advantages " Disadvantages of A PR Electoral System. UK Engage. Retrieved from https://www.uk-engage.org/2013/08/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-using-a-proportional-representation-pr-electoral-system/
Wilkinson, M. (2018). What is the 'First Past The Post' voting system?. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/first-past-post-voting-system/
