BY DOMINIC WIGHTMAN

First-Past-The-Post (FPTP), often a lightning rod for criticism, remains a cornerstone of the British electoral system. Its simplicity and directness stand in stark contrast to the labyrinthine complexity of alternative voting methods. While it is fashionable in some circles to decry FPTP as outdated or unfair, this system offers a multitude of virtues that are easily overlooked in the clamour for reform.

The simplicity of FPTP cannot be overstated. Voters mark an ‘X’ next to their preferred candidate, and the one with the most votes wins. This straightforwardness is a tonic for a political landscape often riddled with confusion and complexity. There is no need for voters to grapple with the intricacies of ranking candidates or understanding the nuances of proportional representation. This ease of understanding likely contributes to higher voter turnout, as the process is accessible and clear to all, from the politically astute to the casual participant. For instance, in the 2019 UK General Election, voter turnout was 67.3%, a respectable figure indicative of an engaged electorate.

Moreover, FPTP is a bulwark of stable government. The system’s tendency to produce majority governments is not a flaw but a feature. In a world where coalition governments frequently succumb to infighting and instability, the decisiveness of a majority government is a precious commodity. Single-party majorities can pursue their legislative agendas without the constant threat of coalition collapses, ensuring that policy-making is coherent and consistent. The resultant stability is indispensable for long-term planning and governance. The 2015 UK General Election, which saw the Conservative Party secure a majority, is a case in point. This victory enabled them to implement a series of policies without the hindrance of coalition compromises, such as the EU referendum, which they would have been unlikely to have accomplished in a rainbow coalition of dissenting voices.

Accountability is another area where FPTP excels. Each Member of Parliament represents a specific constituency, a tangible slice of the nation. This clear link between MPs and their constituents ensures that the voices of the electorate are heard and their concerns addressed. MPs, knowing their re-election hinges on the satisfaction of their constituents, are incentivised to remain attuned to local issues and to act as effective advocates for their regions. This direct accountability fosters a healthy, responsive democratic process. Consider the example of Jo Cox, the Labour MP for Batley and Spen, who was deeply involved in her constituency and worked tirelessly to address local issues before her tragic murder in 2016.

In encouraging strong, broad-based political parties, FPTP enhances governance. The system often results in a two-party structure, compelling parties to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters. This necessity for widespread appeal curtails the influence of fringe groups and promotes moderation. The dichotomy simplifies electoral choices, reducing the risks of vote splitting and the inadvertent election of candidates with minimal support. The general elections in the UK often illustrate this, with the Conservative and Labour parties dominating the political landscape and marginal parties struggling to gain significant ground.

FPTP also acts as a check against the rise of extremism. In an age where political polarisation is a growing concern, the system’s requirement for concentrated support ensures that extremist parties struggle to gain a foothold. This safeguard maintains political stability and prevents the legislature from becoming a fragmented battleground of ideologies, which could otherwise erode the integrity of the political system. The failure of the British National Party (BNP) to secure any seats in recent general elections despite substantial media coverage and campaigning underscores this point. Under FPTP a few seats were wasted this year on Islamists — imagine what PR would do to boost the power of these extremists and other loons.

Furthermore, the efficiency of government formation under FPTP is commendable. In electoral systems that necessitate coalition-building, post-election negotiations can drag on interminably, leaving a governance vacuum. FPTP’s propensity to produce clear winners facilitates swift transitions of power, ensuring that governmental operations continue unabated and that political uncertainty is minimised. The swift formation of the Conservative government in 2019, or that of Labour this year, following their decisive victories, exemplify this efficiency.

Compare that to the PR mess in Israel, Spain or Holland in recent times.

While FPTP is not without its detractors (some of whom write for this magazine), who argue that it can lead to disproportional representation and marginalise smaller parties, its merits are substantial and enduring. The system’s simplicity, stability, accountability, and promotion of strong governance provide a robust framework for democratic elections. In an era increasingly enamoured with the allure of complex voting systems, the enduring virtues of FPTP remind us that sometimes, the simplest solutions are the most effective. The idea that FPTP creates a political smugness that attracts low-grade individuals is wrong — PR attracts all-comers and only legislation enforcing candidates to have spent a significant amount of time working out in the real world in politically-unrelated jobs would ever halt the candidate quality rot.

I am awfully sorry to be so blunt about it but Proportional Representation (argued here by City Grump in today’s CSM) is, for the most part, the desired system of the perennial losers and pretenders — which is why the likes of the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and now, dare I say, one’s friends at UKIP/Reform are forever clamouring for it.

Dominic Wightman, a Tory, is the Editor of Country Squire Magazine and the author of Dear Townies and Arcadia amongst other books.