What are the advantages of the electoral system used to elect the Westminster Parliament?

Résumé du document

In May 2005, as a response to the general elections in the UK, the Independent ran the headline ?What we voted for, what we got ... and why it's time for change.' The article meant to underline and highlight the discrepancy between the 55.2% seats in the Parliament which was secured by the Labor party and its narrow 35.3% share of the vote across the whole of the UK. It then attained a state of what one would coin as a ?reformation'. This symbolic example emphasizes a more widespread movement of protestation against the British First-Past-The-Post electoral system. Since time immemorial, the UK electoral system has been criticized on the grounds of it being unrepresentative, unfair, and even undemocratic. It is observed that the British general voting system seems to be living upto these accusations and remarks. In 1998, the Jenkins Commission was adopted and implemented by Tony Blair. If the electoral system is very closely examined and a comparative study is being done on the principles of the Jenkins Commission, it is heartening to note that the Jenkins proposal which was suggested by Blair seems to have been buried in a simultaneous manner of sweeping away Blair's campaign promise of a referendum on the electoral system. Therefore, as a first preliminary comment, one has to recognize that whatever pressure it has been witnessing or is currently subjected to, the general election voting system proves to have been extremely resilient until recently. As a prerequisite to highlighting the potential advantages of the voting system, an onlooker would definitely wonder and be in awe of the electoral voting system which was under a scene of extreme stress was significantly successful in penetrating into the UK society.

Extraits

[...] And, as long as the coalition (hardly foreseeable by citizens) would be shaped, each party would then have to compromise on its own programme. In this context, accountability is made more difficult. On the contrary, as a consequence to the Westminster electoral system, parties are directly accountable to the citizens on what they do and on how they do it. Parties are fully aware of the fact that citizens, after the term, will choose in the polls whether they wish to reelect the same party or not. [...]

[...] Simplicity is good for democracy: choice, accountability and choice again The electoral system used to elect the Westminster parliament has the great advantage of being simple. The simple and genuine choice it offers, coupled with its majoritarian effects and the deadline of the next elections, allows for an efficient accountability process. On a local basis, the electoral system, based on a single MP per constituency offers the advantage of generating a direct link between the citizen and his or her representative. [...]

[...] Penguin book - Heffernan, Richard (2003) ‘Political Parties and the Party System', in P. Dunleavy, A. Gamble, R. Heffernan and G. Peele, Developments in British Politics 7. Basingstoke: Palgrave - Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe, David McKay, K Newton, The new british politics, 2nd ed 2001, ed. Longman - J. Dearlove, P.Saunders, Introduction to British politics, 3rd edition - P Norton, Parliament in British politics, ed. [...]

[...] Otherwise, they run the risk of letting a third party creep in the system and replace one of them. The second point comes more under a normative appraisal : in my opinion, such a system offers the great advantage of acting as a watchdog against the emergence of extremism to the extent that extremist parties (which usually are minor) have very little chance to win seats in the Parliament and because, even within the two main parties, candidates which come from extreme poles of the parties would most of the time not be selected by the parties to run the elections given that most of the floating voters belong to the middle of the political spectrum. [...]

[...] What are the advantages of the electoral system used to elect the Westminster Parliament? May 2005, right after the general elections, the Independent ran the headline “What we voted for, what we got . and why it's time for change"[1]. The article meant to underline the discrepancy between the seats in Parliament secured by the Labour party and its narrow share of the vote in the whole UK. It called for reform. This symbolic example stands for a more widespread movement of protestation against the British First-Past-The-Post electoral system. [...]