Electoral Reform

Should the UK adopt a PR Voting System?

Case study: The British Columbia Electoral Reform Referendum

The 2019 Election result using different voting systems

Elections Act 2022: Voter ID for the UK

The General Election 2024

Britain’s FPTP system is an inherently two-party one. Barring the two wartime governments and the Liberal Democrats’ recent five-year stint in a coalition with the Conservatives, only the Conservatives and the Labour Party have won an election since 1910. Voters are given a clear choice between these mostly opposed parties. Therefore, the FPTP winner takes all approach pays dividends, delivering a clear winner from these two.

As part of the coalition agreement, it was decided that a referendum would be held on changing the voting system for elections to the Westminster Parliament to the alternative vote (AV). On Thursday 5 May 2011 the referendum produced a clear result against this change: 67.9% (13 million) were against change, 32.1% (6 million) were in favour. This now in effect halts any possible electoral reform- for a considerable period. However, we can still ascertain competing views about the suitability of first-past-the-post (FPTP) as used in the Westminster elections.

Should we continue with the first-past-the-post electoral voting system for Westminster elections? Reasons for saying NO

The general elections of 1979 and 1997 were seen as representing a 'sea change' or major shift in public opinion; the FPTP system can reflect this prevailing mood

No system which has gained widespread support and can deliver the benefits of FPTP has yet been presented to the public

Reflects broad popular movements

Poor alternatives on offer

No demand for change

The outcome of the referendum on 5 May ended any question that the current system was unpopular and that change was desired

Is Digital Democracy the answer?

Should the UK adopt a PR voting system for Parliament?

YES

A proportional system would offer fairer representation for smaller parties. The current setup penalizes small and emerging parties whose votes aren’t concentrated enough to win a plurality in a specific constituency. Take the 2024 election as an example: Reform UK received 14.3% of the vote but only won five seats, while the Liberal Democrats, with 11.1% of the vote, secured more seats. This highlights how the system favors established parties and maintains their dominance. Adopting a proportional system would ensure that the number of seats a party wins truly reflects the share of votes it receives

In the UK, there are concerns about a democratic deficit, meaning we may not be as democratic as many other nations. Referendums are rarely used, the current voting system is seen as unfair, and local government is weak. A proportional system could help build greater legitimacy, trust in politics, and a stronger sense that elections are truly democratic, potentially addressing the issue of the democratic deficit.

A proportional system would give voters more choice at election time. Smaller parties could run without worrying about splitting the vote and would have a much better chance of winning seats. People could support smaller parties without feeling like their vote was wasted, which often happens under First Past the Post. Plus, the single transferable vote lets voters choose between multiple candidates from the same party, so they can back their preferred candidate instead of being stuck with the one selected by the party for the constituency.

Concerns about low participation rates, whether in voter turnout or political party membership, could partly be addressed by proportional systems. These would offer a wider variety of choices in elections and more chances for people to see their views reflected in the ballot papers and representatives in Parliament. This might encourage greater engagement, especially among young people.

A proportional system would help ensure that governments better reflect society as a whole. In the recent UK election, Labour won 33.7% of the vote but secured 63.2% of MPs, effectively holding all the power. This raises questions about how well the government represents the nation. With proportional representation, a majority of seats would mean a majority of voters supported them. The UK has shown that coalitions can work, like the one between 2010 and 2015, and there’s no reason to think a government elected under such a system would be any different. Wales and Scotland have also formed coalition governments without significant issues.

In countries that use proportional systems for elections, parties tend to choose a more diverse range of candidates, leading to a greater variety of elected representatives. Britain has historically had a poor record of electing women to Parliament, though this has improved over time. Most other European nations have higher levels of representation for women, ethnic groups, and other minorities, largely as a result of proportional systems.

NO

First past the post keeps a strong link between MPs and their constituencies. For a proportional system to work, constituencies would need to be much larger to fit multiple representatives, which would weaken this link—an important feature of UK politics and representative democracy. The current one-MP-per-constituency setup makes it clear who represents each area. This could be replaced by a mix of constituency and regional representatives under AMS, or several MPs all claiming to be the true voice of a constituency under systems like single transferable vote or the closed list. Larger constituencies would also make it harder for representatives to know their area and its issues well.

First-past-the-post is a simple, easy-to-grasp system. Voting is quick, counting is straightforward, and results are often ready within hours of polls closing, allowing power to shift as soon as the next day. In contrast, proportional systems can feel overly complicated. With the single transferable vote, having multiple candidates from the same party can make things confusing and even lead to donkey voting—picking candidates in the order they appear on the ballot. Transferring votes from elected to eliminated candidates takes time, sometimes days, and the process can seem vague and hard for voters to follow.

First Past the Post is seen as a way to ensure strong and stable government. The winner’s bonus it gives to the largest party, (SEE 2024 )helps secure a single-party government that can serve a full term. In contrast, proportional electoral systems make forming a government much harder, as no party is likely to win a majority of votes or seats. This usually leads to a coalition, which can take a long time to form and, if involving several parties, may be prone to collapse. For example, after the Irish general election in 2020, it took about four months to form a coalition, delaying the country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although First Past the Post is certainly unfair to small parties, generally making it harder for any without concentrated support across large regions, the advantage is that radical and extremist groups from the far left or far right find it difficult to gain representation in parliament. Britain is one of the few countries in Europe without a significant number of far-left or far-right representatives in its legislature. The dominant parties, Labour and Conservative, tend to be moderate, aiming to create policies with broad appeal.