The concept of “power in numbers” is omnipotent in every form within society.

It is my belief that this will be the last English Election using the First Past the Post system.

The biggest problem with plurality is the obvious problems with representation and regional conflict that it has plagued the English government with for many decades.

Although there is a great representation of the parties that receive the “majority” of the votes, there is hardly any representation for the minority parties; this then causes a large regional conflict. Resulting in the Scottish Referendum 2014 for Independence.

Plurality only increases the amount of tensions between regions.

The majority of the population that does not vote is probably no longer concerned with politics because of the discrimination of the plurality system. “…inequalities in the representation of the different political parties… are regarded by some commentators as factors leading to a loss of interest in politics, and even to disaffection.

This is a very substantial reason why proportional representation is the better electoral system than the first-past-the-post system.

It has been proven in other countries to increase voter turnout in local, provincial and national levels.

Proportional representation (PR) proves to the population that every vote counts it tightens the gap of women’s representation.

This is largely because of the knowledge of voters that their vote will count for more in the PR system than it would in the plurality system.

It is completely evident that proportional representation is the most reliable and feasible method for electing the Members of Parliament to the House of Commons. The reason for this is that with plurality, one can only count on the larger parties to win; therefore, instead of “throwing away” a vote for a smaller, less popular party, the voter would either vote for the larger party or not vote at all. “Because seats can be gained [in PR] with only a fraction of the total vote, voters have fewer incentives to abandon their most preferred candidates.Accordingly, the number of viable candidates increases with PR.

Democracy is often perceived as the ‘rule of the majority.’

In many mature democracies in the world, only those candidates are eligible to be elected who secure more than 50 percent of the polled vote in an election where more than 50 percent of the electorate has cast its vote.

People here vote for political parties and not individuals based on the policies and programmes of these parties. Every party submits a priority list to the election authorities prior to the elections. Depending on its vote share, the number of MPs is selected from this list.

This has an inbuilt mechanism whereby any government that is formed post-elections will necessarily have the support of more than 50 percent of those who have voted.

There are significant problems to a PR system as well. For one, in an apparent contradiction, the PR system could make all future governments inherently unstable as no party would ever be able to get a majority.

This in itself may not be a bad outcome, since stability is often a code word for suppressing marginal voices.

Second, a PR system would empower party leaders over local representatives if a list model is adopted and this will not give small parties, which now can win a seat or two in their region of influence and have a voice in Parliament, any national presence.

Third, even if a mixed-PR model is adopted, there is no guarantee that this complicated system would address the problem of instability and the need to provide representation to the small parties.

The State Opening of Parliament marks the formal start of the parliamentary year and the Queen’s Speech sets out the government’s agenda for the coming session, outlining proposed policies and legislation. It is the only regular occasion when the three constituent parts of Parliament – the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons – meet.  Although the Queen reads the Speech, it is written by the government.

It contains an outline of its policies and proposed legislation for the new parliamentary session.

That leaves us with The Big Question:

Why doesn’t the UK have a written constitution, and does it matter?

( Nor is there a single statement of citizens’ rights and freedom.)

Is this because it is ruled by a heredity Monarch. Most people might struggle to put their finger on where their rights are.

Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community in 1973, which brought the country for the first time under a degree of international judicial control.

After this election Britain could finally get a written constitution spelling out citizens’ rights and codifying this country’s political system.

Britain’s constitution has developed in haphazard fashion, building on common law, case-law, historical documents, Acts of Parliament and European legislation. It is not set out clearly in any one document.

It does have a  Bill of Rights dated 1689.

Ten years ago Britain came closer than before to codifying individuals’ rights when the Human Rights Act enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.

What are the advantages of a written constitution?

It has become almost a truism that British politics, beset by cynicism about politicians and undermined by falling turn-outs at general elections, is in crisis.

If such a document could be drawn up.

Would it be wide-ranging and largely abstract or would it list individuals’ rights in detail and provide an exhaustive summary of Britain’s constitutional settlement? If the latter, it could prove beyond the grasp of most of the citizens it would be designed to protect.

Britain is not going to get the ground-breaking document any time in the near future. It would require a national referendum to be held to approve the document if it ushered in significant changes.

Do they need a written constitution?

Yes…

* Britain’s arcane hotch-potch of freedoms and rights cannot be defended in the 21st century

* It could help citizens clarify their rights and protect themselves against the state

* Most flourishing democracies base their institutions on a written constitution

No…

* The system should not be tampered with as it has served Britain well for centuries

* The practical problems over what to include and leave out would be a logistical nightmare

* It could undermine the power of Parliament to scrutinise ministers on behalf of the public.

What are your thoughts?

A written constitution is “a formal document defining the nature of the constitutional settlement, the rules that govern the political system and the rights of citizens and government in a codified form.

Written or unwritten, one thing is for sure: there is no such thing as a perfect constitution.