Despite all the overnight drama in the latest British election when the Conservative Party defied all pollsters’ predictions of a tight race with Labour, the composition of seats in parliament (the Commons) contradicts the share of votes among political parties. The winner, the Conservative Party, can form its own government without forging a coalition even though it only garnered 37 percent of the vote. Is it a fair result for voters? For the UK Independent Party (UKIP) and the Green Party (which both won one seat despite the overall share of votes of 12.6 and nearly 4 percent respectively) as well as their supporters the answer is surely yes.
In general, in designing the best electoral system there is a fundamental concept that should always be considered: representation is essential to meet the basic principles of democracy. In the classical theoretical perspective, representation itself depends on a territorial basis in which borders of particular areas are defined and constituents should decide on which candidate they want to represent them and act according to their interests and demands and ensure that the candidate will be responsible to the people who voted for him or her.
The first-past-the-post system (or majoritarian) as implemented in the UK guarantees the representation of every principal, who will be represented by the most popular candidate. In theory, the winner will stand for the constituents regardless of institution (mostly political party) to which he or she belongs.
However, as the complexities of human activities are more evident, a new definition of political representation that is able to cope with cross-border issues is needed. So, representatives are forced to engage with the residents regardless of their domicile. This then creates tensions as common issues across a significant number of constituencies affect a significant number of people.
Full Article: A note from the British election: Has the electoral system failed voters? | The Jakarta Post.