Under the current electoral voting system, general elections are decided using the majority system (FPTP) and members of the House of Commons are elected in single-member constituencies. The single-member system is known for its simplicity, because with this system voters simply place a cross next to a candidate's box on their voting forms and the candidate who accumulates the most votes wins. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Candidates are elected by simple majority voting, and that majority constitutes more than half of the votes cast in an election. The FPTP keeps extremist parties such as UKIP out of power, which is considered to have a xenophobic, homophobic and sexist extremist ideology by the vast majority of the British people, an example of this is UKIP which got 3.8 million of votes in the 2015 general elections but only 1 seat in Parliament because their voters are dispersed and not concentrated. Critics of the FPTP system argue that the system undermines the legitimacy of elected representatives, because parliamentarians can be elected based on minimal amounts of public support. The Electoral Reform Society shows, for example, that "in 2005, George Galloway won only 18.4% of his electors' votes, but ended up in the House of Commons." This lack of legitimacy comes into further focus when considering that "only three MPs elected in 2005 won the votes of more than 40% of their constituents" (Electoral Reform Society). The lack of public legitimacy brings with it two fundamental problems. First, it allows for the election of governments with minimal public support, and in some cases such governments may have radical agendas that are at odds with the majority of public opinion. The second problem with the FPTP system is that it wastes a surprising number of votes. Since the only votes that count are those that lead to the election of the winning candidate, and since the winning candidate almost always gets less than 40% of the total votes, this means that the majority of the total votes are effectively wasted. The government recently presented a proposal to parliamentarians to change the electoral system and move it from an FPTP to an alternative voting (AV) system. In the autumn of 2011, the government, with the support of deputies, held a referendum in front of the public in the form of a referendum on the alternative voting system. In an alternative vote electoral system voters would have marked candidates on the ballot paper in order of preference instead of simply putting a cross next to their preferred candidate, as is currently the case under the FPTP system. This means that voters should place a 1 next to their first-choice candidate, a 2 next to their second-choice candidate, and so on. If a candidate received more than 50% of the vote he would be elected in exactly the same way as under the current system, but if a candidate received less than 50% the preferences of the second choice would be redistributed and this process would be repeated. until one candidate obtains an absolute majority. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Despite the fact that the alternative voting system is different from the FPTP system, AV also falls into the category of majoritarian electoral systems. Prime Minister Gordon Brown supported this reform on the basis that it offers the electorate greater choice and gives candidates a stronger mandate, whilst at the same time maintaining the link between an MP and his or her constituency. "In short, it offers a system in 2010).