The result of the 2011 referendum on electoral reform seems to have closed the book on Britain’s voting system. However, the 2024 General election, which delivered Labour a landslide with just 33.7 per cent of the popular vote, the lowest winning share in history, has reignited this debate. The verdict is clear: Britain’s First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system is no longer fit for purpose.
Defenders of the FPTP system usually lean on two main arguments: tradition and political stability. The FPTP system as we know it today was only consolidated after the Second World War with the Representation of the People Act 1948. This was mainly driven by administrative convenience.
Although it is partially politically motivated, given that both Labour and Conservatives have governed together in wartime coalition, they stood to benefit as the system’s two dominant parties. However, between the Act of Union to the Second World War, Britain experimented with various forms of proportional or semi-proportional representation. The Limited Vote and Cumulative Vote were designed to facilitate fairer representation, while the Single Transferable Vote (STV) were operated in university constituencies and in Ireland, to the displeasure of Protestant unionists.
There were of course, also forms of “unproportional representation” such as Plural voting, which was defended by John Stuart Mill, arguing that those with greater education should have additional votes to balance mass suffrage with misjudgment. Hence, the historical reality is that this “tradition” is a relatively recent invention. In Europe, proportional representation appears closely tied to both political stability and democratic freedom.
Among the top 20 countries in global political stability rankings, all except France use some form of PR. Moreover, nine of the ten highest ranked countries on the 2024 Human Freedom Index employ PR systems, all of which are European. Supporters of FPTP might object that Britain’s political culture is radically different from continental Europe.
Let us then look at the last coalition gov Britain has had, the Cameron-Clegg years. Despite the inherent compromises within the coalition, the government retained enough coherence to act with Cameron as the predominant leader, though constrained. This suggests coalitions need not spell chaos.
Compromise also might not necessarily be a bad thing. I don’t believe it is a coincidence that the Brexit debate intensified after the Liberal Democrats left the government, which allowed Eurosceptic voices to dominate unchecked. Since the referendum, Britain has lurched from one political crisis to another, reflecting the dangers of majoritarianism without checks and balances.
In light of this, Britain should replace the FPTP, which rewards the duopoly party system Britain has, with proportional representation. My preference is the Single Transferable Vote, which is endorsed by the Electoral Reform Society, because it empowers voters rather than political parties. Under STV, voters rank candidates in order of preference, and their votes transfer if their first choice is eliminated or has surplus support.
This ensures nearly every vote counts toward eventually electing a candidate. Hence, incentivising parties to field a diverse range of candidates representing different voters’ concerns. The STV would allow political parties across the spectrum to confront genuine internal diversity rather than suppress it for fear of vote splitting.
Smaller parties could gain meaningful representation, contributing to coalitions that reflect various beliefs of the electorate. Furthermore, in my view, taking into account the global wave of populism, PR can help contain them. Germany’s Mixed-Member Proportional system ensures that no party can gain an outright majority without broad national support.
Bringing together both left- and right-leaning parties can help curb populism on both sides
While the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) dominates in the states of the former East Germany, it cannot govern alone, and mainstream moderate parties are incentivised to form coalitions without it. Resulting in a coalition between the centre-right CDU/CSU bloc and the centre-left SPD. A diverse coalition as such bringing together both leftand right-leaning parties can help curb populism on both sides and enable a more moderate, stable governing body.
However, the case for PR should not rest solely on its ability to ensure a moderate government. The deeper argument is fundamentally democratic. A government should reflect the society it governs, and British politics today simply doesn’t.
Under FPTP, millions of votes are wasted in “safe” seats, young and minority voters are underrepresented, and public trust in the political process continues to erode. If Westminster want to keep the title of Mother of Parliaments, it needs to reinvent itself to the ideals of what a parliament is.