Electoral Reform

Reimagining Proportionate Representation in the UK

Introduction

The way we vote shapes the way we are governed. For over a century, Britain has used the same voting system — one that was built for a very different time. Today, that system distorts democracy, silences voices, and fuels disillusionment. Electoral reform isn’t just a technical fix — it’s a fundamental question of fairness. This page explains where our current system came from, why it’s no longer fit for purpose, and how we can replace it with something better — clear, fair, and built for everyone.

What Is First Past the Post (FPTP) and Why Was It Introduced?

The UK’s First Past the Post system was established by the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885. At the time, the country had just two dominant parties — the Liberals and the Conservatives. Most people couldn’t vote. Literacy was limited. The system made sense in a binary political world.

But the world has changed. The UK is now multi-party, politically diverse, and far more complex. Yet the voting system hasn’t evolved with it.

Why First Past the Post Doesn’t Work Today

FPTP distorts democracy. In 2019, the Conservatives won a majority of seats with just 43.6% of the vote. Smaller parties like the Greens and Liberal Democrats received millions of votes but barely any seats.

It exaggerates majorities, punishes smaller voices, and creates parliaments that do not reflect the electorate.

Wasted Votes and Safe Seats Are Undermining Democracy

Under FPTP, millions of votes don’t count. In so-called safe seats, the result is a foregone conclusion. People don’t vote because they already know the outcome. Others vote tactically, choosing the “least bad” option just to block someone else.

It’s not democracy. It’s survival voting. And it’s breaking public trust.

What Is Proportional Representation (PR)?

PR is a system where the number of seats a party gets matches the number of votes they receive. If a party gets 25% of the vote, they get around 25% of the seats.

PR doesn’t waste votes. It includes smaller voices. It reflects how people actually vote.

How Would Proportional Representation Work in the UK?

We propose a Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP) model:

  • Two votes per person: one for your local MP, one for your preferred party.

  • Local MPs are elected as they are now.

  • Additional MPs are added from party lists to balance the result and match the national vote.

  • Multi-member regions allow this to happen without erasing local accountability.

Why the 2011 AV Referendum Failed

The 2011 referendum didn’t offer true PR — it offered Alternative Vote, which still relied on single-member seats. Voters ranked candidates, but the result was still majoritarian.

There was confusion. No unity. No education. And no compelling reason to care. It wasn’t reform — it was a missed opportunity.

What Are the Benefits of Proportional Representation?

  • Every vote counts, no matter where you live.

  • More parties = more choice, more voices.

  • Higher turnout, because people know their vote matters.

  • Coalitions that reflect the broader will of the people, not just one party’s agenda.

How Does Proportional Representation Work in Other Countries?

Ireland uses PR-STV, where voters rank candidates in multi-member constituencies. It works. It encourages diversity and keeps a strong local connection.

Germany uses MMP, where Parliament is adjusted to match the vote. It works. It balances stability with fairness.

Would PR Work in the UK?

Yes — and better than most people realise. We propose a hybrid system:

  • MMP for Westminster (fair, national representation)

  • STV for local councils and devolved governments (flexible, local accountability)

This model is already working elsewhere. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel — we just need to modernise.

What Would PR Look Like in Westminster?

Parliament would include:

  • Constituency MPs, elected like now.

  • List MPs, added to balance results based on the national vote.

That means a Parliament that mirrors how people voted — not just who shouted loudest in the right postcode.

How Would We Transition to Proportional Representation?

  • Citizens’ Assembly to guide and review the process.

  • Pilot schemes in local elections to test and refine.

  • Clear public education campaigns to explain the new system.

  • Legislation passed for national implementation within two election cycles.

Why the Country Needs Electoral Reform Now

We’re not just voting less — we’re believing less. Our system is outdated, unfair, and unrepresentative. People feel powerless. PR gives power back.

When people feel seen and heard, democracy heals.

How PR Helps the Public

  • Fair outcomes that reflect what the country actually wants.

  • Less tribalism, more listening.

  • Policies shaped by negotiation, not authoritarian overreach.

This isn’t about parties. It’s about people.

Electoral Reform: Building a Better Future

The voting system affects everything else — housing, education, healthcare, taxation. If you want change, you must first change how change is decided.

Our system was built for 1885. Let’s build one for the future.
For more detail Please read the following article

Electoral Reform in the UK: History and a Path Forward

British democracy has grown slowly but steadily more inclusive and representative over the centuries. Nineteenth-century reforms expanded the franchise and redrew constituencies to be more equal. In 1884–85, for example, Parliament introduced a uniform household franchise and passed the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885, which “redrew boundaries to make electoral districts equal” so that most areas elected only one MP. This act, together with the Third Reform Act, roughly tripled the electorate and set the stage for our one-member constituency system. Similarly, the Representation of the People Act 1918 was a landmark: it granted the vote to all men over 21 and to women over 30 (meeting property qualifications). By abolishing old property restrictions, the 1918 act increased the electorate from about 8 million to 21 million, finally making British democracy broadly representative of adult men and (part of) women. Further milestones include equalising the franchise for women in 1928, extending devolution in the late 1990s (creating a Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elected by mixed-member systems, and a Northern Ireland Assembly by STV), and referendums like the 2011 Alternative Vote (AV) referendum. In 2011, the coalition government’s proposal to switch from First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) to AV was resoundingly defeated – about 68% voted “No” on a 42% turnout – but the referendum itself marked a moment when the limits of our traditional system were put into the spotlight. Over time, each reform—from 19th-century franchise extensions to modern devolution—has made our system fairer and more inclusive, building on previous changes rather than tearing them down.

The First-Past-the-Post Legacy

After 1885 Britain settled into a system of single-member districts (FPTP) that suited its politics for generations. FPTP tends to favour strong local ties and often produces majority governments, which was seen as stabilizing for a growing industrial nation. Throughout much of the 20th century, it delivered alternating Labour and Conservative governments (with the Liberal Party or its successors as a smaller third force). But the very features that made FPTP work in the past now look like disadvantages in a more complex society. In recent elections, FPTP has produced highly disproportional outcomes: for instance, in 2024 one party won a 174-seat majority in Parliament with only ~34% of the vote. Analysts called this result “the most disproportional on record,” noting that millions of votes for smaller parties had almost no effect on seats. Under FPTP, Reform UK’s 14.3% vote share won just 5 MPs and the Greens’ 6.8% only 4 MPs – meaning tens of millions of people had no local representative of their choice. Indeed, a recent analysis found that about 73.7% of votes in the 2024 general election “made no difference” under FPTP (going to losing or surplus candidates). This pattern is repeated across the country: in many constituencies the winning MP commands only a minority of ballots, while the majority of voters see their preferences unrepresented. Such wasted votes and skewed seat totals have shaken confidence in FPTP’s fairness.

Moreover, UK society has changed drastically. Today Britain is more diverse, fragmented and issue-driven than it was a century ago. About 16% of the UK population is from an ethnic minority background, yet only ~10% of MPs in 2019 were minorities. Labour and the Conservatives no longer encompass all voters: regional parties (like the SNP), new parties (Greens, Reform UK), and social movements have tens of percent of support, but FPTP systematically marginalises them in Parliament. Many younger voters and professionals, and people in cities, feel disconnected from a system built in a more homogeneous age. In short, a once-appropriate winner-takes-all system in a two-party era now leaves large swaths of the public feeling voiceless. Opinion surveys and commentators increasingly note that FPTP’s distortions clash with modern expectations of representation and fairness. The combination of more parties, more diverse identities, and a globalized media age undermines the old assumption that only two-party politics are legitimate.

International Models of Proportional Representation

Other democracies show how different systems can work. Each has lessons (and none is easily transplanted wholesale). For example:

  • Ireland (STV): The Republic of Ireland uses Single Transferable Vote in multi-member districts. Voters rank candidates and multiple representatives (3–5 per constituency) are elected by reaching vote quotas. This produces results that closely reflect voters’ ranked choices, but requires smaller constituencies and quite lengthy ballots. Ireland’s STV system tends to reward consensus and coalition-building, but it also reflects local communities. It shows how proportional outcomes can coexist with personal candidate choice. However, applying STV across the whole UK would mean very large ballots and might weaken the direct link between MP and local area.

  • Germany (MMP): Germany’s federal system uses Mixed Member Proportional representation. Each voter has two votes: one for a local constituency candidate (first-past-the-post), and a second for a party list. Constituency winners get seats, but a party’s total number of seats is adjusted after the election to match its share of the party vote, using proportional allocation. In practice, if a party wins more local seats than its vote share, extra (“overhang”) seats are added to keep Parliament proportional. This system keeps a personal link to constituencies while ensuring nearly proportional party results. It requires federal states and complex seat calculations, and features a 5% threshold for small parties. Implementing a German-style MMP in the UK would need adaptations (since we lack states, and our electorate is much larger), but the principle – two votes and “top-up” seats to correct imbalances – is appealing for fairness.

  • New Zealand (MMP): Since 1996 New Zealand has used an MMP system similar to Germany’s. As in Germany, each voter has a party vote (determining the share of seats for each party) and an electorate vote (for their local MP). There are 120 seats in Parliament: parties must win 5% of the party vote or one electorate seat to enter Parliament. Seats are then allocated so that a party’s total number of MPs matches its party vote share. This system kept New Zealand’s Parliament broadly proportional and diversified representation (the largest small parties still got seats, and coalition governments became the norm). Importantly, New Zealand’s model was crafted by referendum and incremental review, blending proportionality with local representation. But again, NZ is a smaller country (and used a referendum to set up MMP after 1993), so UK adoption would require adjustments in scale and thresholds.

Each of these systems shows pros and cons. They inspire ideas but can’t be copy-pasted. For instance, Ireland’s STV works well with smaller population and constituency sizes; scaling that to Britain’s vast 650-seat Parliament would create huge multi-seat districts. Germany’s model relies on federal states and carefully managed overhang rules; our unitary Parliament would need its own rules for “extra” MPs if implemented. New Zealand’s setup balanced proportionality with a small threshold, but in the UK many more parties and interests might arise. In short, the UK must find its own balance of proportionality and locality, learning from abroad but crafting a system to fit Britain’s unique context.

Toward a UK-Appropriate Hybrid System

Given these lessons, one can imagine an evolutionary reform combining the best of both worlds. For example, voters might keep two votes: one for a local representative and one for a party (as in MMP). The local seats could be filled in larger, multi-member constituencies (somewhat STV-like) or by FPTP; then “top-up” seats would be allocated from party lists to ensure overall proportionality. In practice, this might mean grouping current constituencies into regions that elect several MPs, while adding regional list MPs to correct distortions. Voters could still feel a personal link to an MP (or two) in their area, but every vote would contribute to the national outcome. Alternatively, one could keep single-member districts and simply add a tier of compensatory seats (an approach like the Additional Member System already used in Scotland and Wales). The exact design would need careful detail: deciding thresholds, district magnitudes, and vote counting methods.

Crucially, this idea isn’t a revolutionary break, but a natural extension of the path we’re on. Our democracy has repeatedly adapted: from feudal borough representation to broad suffrage and one-member districts, and from local government reforms to the very creation of new assemblies with proportional elements. Introducing multi-member representation or compensatory seats would be another step in that ongoing journey, aimed at making our Parliament mirror the country more accurately without abandoning the principle of local choice. It respects the tradition of accountable MPs while recognizing that today’s voters expect every ballot to count.

Conclusion: Open Scrutiny and Democratic Renewal

No electoral system is perfect, and any change would have trade-offs. What matters most is having an informed, open debate about those trade-offs and thinking far beyond the next election. British democracy has never been static – we have updated it repeatedly (1885 and 1918 being cases in point) because each generation demands it. Today, in our diverse, multi-party reality, clinging to an outdated plurality system risks increasing public cynicism. By contrast, a carefully designed reform—grounded in evidence from abroad and our own experience—can renew faith in politics. Achieving this will require long-term thinking, cross-party discussion, and active public engagement. In the spirit of our democracy, any reform should be considered not as a sudden break, but as a continuation of the historical arc of inclusion and fairness. With transparent scrutiny and a focus on democratic renewal, we can adapt our electoral system to better serve Britain’s future.

Sources: