Pros And Cons Of A Majoritarian System

The statement is true. Majoritarian systems have inherent mechanical and psychological barriers against smaller parties (Farrell, 2011: 259), and so proportional representation is much more likely to have a government whose policies are influenced by smaller parties. A radical small party will also encounter these barriers. However, if a radical party becomes popular and large, these barriers cease to apply and the mechanics of the electoral system fail to hinder it any longer. This prevailing of a well-supported party (radical or moderate) under either democratic system would be expected for any popular, large party; since democracy is meant to give the largest parties the most say. MES disproportionally favours larger parties and hinders

They systematically exclude some voices in the electorate and over-reward the winner of an election, producing an ‘elected dictatorship’ which does not need to compromise with other parties (Norris, 1997: 10). The average winner’s bonus under MES is 12.5%, versus 5.7% under PR, i.e. to be assured of a parliamentary majority of seats, a party under PR would need to win 46.3% of the vote, but only 37.5% under MES (Norris, 1997: 8). In 1992, Sir Russell Johnston was elected in an SMP British constituency with only 19% of its support (Farrell, 2011: 16-17) and in that year’s general election, 40% of elected MPs did not have an overall majority of votes in their constituency (Farrell, 2011: 17-19) – that figure was 64% in 2005 (Farrell, 2011: 24). Indeed, the last time a governing party in the UK won as much as 50% of the vote was in 1935; Margaret Thatcher had a large parliamentary majority in 1983, but only 30.8% of the vote (Norris, 1997: 3). After the war, British governments received an average of 45% of the popular vote but 54% of seats in parliament, and even in close elections, almost never had to form coalitions (Norris, 1997: 6). The advertised strong government of majoritarian systems depends on this exaggerated bias and bonus where, for example, the 2010 UK elections resulted in the Conservatives winning 36.1% of the vote but being rewarded with 47.2% of the seats, Labour’s 29% being exaggerated to 39.8%, and the Liberal Democrats having their 23% of the vote penalised with only 8.8% in Westminster (Farrell, 2011: 64). The recent UK elections have resulted in a Conservative majority government with just 37% of the vote (BBC News, 2015), and in the 1997 Canadian elections, the Liberals managed the same with 39% of the popular vote (Fair Vote Canada, 2005). Vast levels of distortion are produced under MES (Farrell, 2011: 19), e.g. in 1983 the Liberal Alliance and Labour received