A guest post by Conor Gaughan, PhD Researcher in Politics at the University of Southampton

Once famous across the West for our democratic traditions, the UK is now run by a Government that appears to have little respect for democratic norms.   Unlock Democracy is part of a growing movement that recognises that our political system is in urgent need of reform.

In order to renew our democracy, we must understand the systems currently in place. Understanding our voting system is central to examining the distribution of power in our country. First-Past-the-Post deeply influences UK politics and Government. To challenge it, we must understand where it came from.

What is First-Past-the-Post?  

First-Past-the-Post is a majoritarian style of voting system, used in a number of countries around the world, in a variety of formats. In the UK, FPTP splits the electorate into 650 constituencies containing approximately 60,000-80,000 citizens, represented by one Member of Parliament. FPTP is a prime example of a majoritarian voting system, in which a winner-takes-all rule operates in each constituency.

This means that a candidate in any given constituency need only win more of the vote share than their competitors to win the seat in the House of Commons. The Party with the largest number of seats is then invited to form a Government by the Monarch and, unless they agree to join a coalition government, all other parties are forced into opposition. 

When did it become our national electoral system?

The origins of First-Past-the-Post can be traced back to the First Great Reform Act of 1832. Following the end of the Napoleonic Wars with the French Empire in 1815, Britain experienced a period of significant economic downturn, mass unemployment, widespread starvation, and poverty. This was most acutely felt in manufacturing areas. At the time, only 11% of adult males had the right to vote. The electoral system – then known as Bloc Voting – was considered by many to be deeply corrupt and highly favouring the interests of the ruling elite.

Under the Bloc Voting system, there were major industrial cities such as Manchester and Birmingham that had no MPs, whilst small “rotten” boroughs like Old Sarum had 7 voters but returned 3 MPs to Parliament. Combined, these factors created the perfect storm that led to an increasing demand for parliamentary reform across the country and, most importantly, mass enfranchisement of the working class.

This movement for electoral reform culminated in a pivotal event in British political history – the Peterloo Massacre of 1819. Now the topic of several books and a recent film, Peterloo involved up to 60,000 working-class people from the industrial North marching on St Peter’s Field in Central Manchester. Although on the day the protest was met with a private militia hired by wealthy landowners, the historic protest showed the ruling elite the lengths that ordinary people would go to in the fight to secure their democratic right to representation. The Peterloo Massacre is widely seen as paving the way for the electoral reforms that began in 1832. 

As a result of the 1832 Act, rotten boroughs were abolished and constituencies with MPs were created for rapidly growing industrialised cities like Manchester. The 1832 reforms expanded the franchise to a greater number of working-class men, yet constituency sizes were still grossly unbalanced, most of the working class were still excluded from the vote, and women were excluded from voting altogether.

Two further reform bills passed in 1867 and 1884 aimed to rectify these issues, but it would not be until 1928, with the passing of the Equal Franchise Act, when women achieved the same voting rights as men, that we would see the level of representation and enfranchisement across the UK that we know today. Nonetheless, by 1884, the template for today’s First-Past-the-Post system was established.

Why First-Past-the-Post?

Since the dawn of British democracy, Parliament had been dominated by the landowning aristocracy. This ruling elite had a clear and vested interest in maintaining its supremacy.

Majoritarian voting systems limit the number of parties that can win seats in the legislature and therefore exercise real power over the shape of legislation. The FPTP system goes hand in hand with a two-party system, as seen in countries that use the system today – including the USA, Australia and India. Requiring candidates to have the highest proportion of votes in any given constituency to secure election acts as an effective break on the ambitions of new parties.

The benefits FPTP offers to larger, established parties explains why the ruling elites of the 1880s were willing to allow mass enfranchisement under FPTP. They were confident that the only parties that could realistically win power were the two that already dominated the system. The rise of the Labour Party, the political wing of the Labour movement, shook Parliament to its roots, showing that change can happen under FPTP, but the natural tendency for a duopoly to operate under FPTP was re-established by the early 1930s.

Conclusion

The 3 Great Reform Acts (1832, 1867 and 1884) mentioned above, consolidated by the 1918 Representation of the People Act that allowed women to vote for the first time – revolutionised British democracy. Each of these Acts were delivered thanks to the creativity, determination and grit of countless campaigners, protestors and reformist politicians. Their ability to wrestle power from the aristocratic elite and give it to ordinary, working people in the form of a vote, should serve as a source of inspiration for all those who care about UK democracy today.

Following their inspiration, we must confront the fact that FPTP has inherent characteristics that act as a block on new parties, new ideas and diverse visions of society. 

In the fight to renew our democracy, we must look to our past for inspiration and belief that a further Great Reform Act, and a leap forward to a fair and equal voting system, is possible. 

Conor Gaughan