Our first past the post electoral system works, reasonably well, in a two-party world. There, it gives voters a simple choice, and the winner has a clear mandate from more than half the voters. But the system falls apart when there are five parties. Now, a party can win a comfortable majority of seats with barely a third of the votes, as Labour did in 2024. And current polling suggests that, with the same vote share, Reform could now win a majority, despite the fact that half the electorate say they would never consider voting for them.
A government with support from only a third of voters has a very weak mandate. It will struggle to command popular support, and be very vulnerable to small swings in opinion. The result is uncertainty and instability. It makes the long-term strategic planning we need almost impossible.
Resistance to change
So, the call for us to join the rest of the democratic world with a proportional electoral system are getting louder. But there is still resistance to change. While minority parties like the Liberal Democrats have always supported a more proportional system, parties which win national elections are always reluctant to abandon the system that put them in power.
This is evident in recent history. When it was clearly a tiny fringe party, Reform UK supported change, which might have given them a few dozen MPs. Now, when they are polling around 30%, which could put them in reach of power under first past the post, they are reconsidering. Conversely, in 2022, when the Labour Party feared it would lose the next election, its conference voted overwhelmingly to introduce proportional representation, but this was rejected by the leadership, and in 2024, only clever campaign targeting secured them a historic, but deeply unrepresentative, win.
A plan for change
However, there is growing recognition among MPs that the present situation is not only undemocratic, but politically risky. The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Fair Elections is now the largest APPG, with over 150 MPs, and three quarters of all MPs are from parties in favour of change. In 2024, for the first time in history, the House of Commons voted to move toward proportional representation. And the APPG has now produced a plan for change.
The Labour party has already acknowledged that “the flaws in the current voting system are contributing to the distrust and alienation we see in politics”. The party is using a proportional system to elect its new Deputy Leader, and it has already abolished FPTP for mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner elections. Small steps, but in the right direction.
Avoiding past mistakes
In 2011, the government held a referendum on switching to Alternative Vote elections (AV). But experts argued that AV was not really a proportional system, most voters were simply confused, and people voted, by two to one, for the system they know.
But since 2011, public attitudes have changed, and voters are increasingly angry that their voices are not heard. The British Social Attitudes survey now shows a record 60% in support of a more proportional system, with only 36% supporting first past the post.
But to avoid a repeat of the 2011 confusion, the APPG is not calling for an immediate change. Rather, they propose a National Commission on Electoral Reform to consider and consult on options and produce detailed proposals. The proposal draws on extensive international experience from electoral reform processes in New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Scotland, and other jurisdictions, incorporating lessons from past commissions dating back to 1986.
Commission Structure and Components
The proposed commission would comprise:
- Panel of Independent Commissioners: Up to seven non-partisan individuals, including an independent chair, appointed by the government in consultation with relevant Select Committees. This panel would be the executive body, gathering evidence and writing reports while ensuring that recommendations reflect citizen values, informed by expert evidence.
- Expert Panel: Seven academics and practitioners, providing politically impartial advice on voting system design, election data and modelling, international comparisons, and impacts on diversity and equality.
- Voters’ Forum: Approximately 100 members of the public selected to reflect electoral diversity, functioning as a deliberative democratic body. This forum would identify principles and values, recommend assessment criteria for voting systems, and evaluate trade-offs through facilitated deliberation.
- Secretariat: A civil service team led by a senior civil servant providing administrative support.
Core Questions and Methodology
The commission would consider four fundamental questions:
- What criteria should define a suitable voting system for modern Britain?
- Does first past the post meet these criteria?
- Do alternative systems better meet these criteria?
- Which system would best serve modern Britain overall?
The commission would consult through written evidence calls, online platforms, public hearings, polling, regional workshops, and stakeholder engagement with parliamentarians, civil servants, electoral administrators, and international counterparts.
Timeline and Deliverables
The commission would launch within three months of announcement, with a final report expected within 12 months. There would be an interim report on the first two questions to stimulate debate and deeper consultation. This is critical, since any change must be based on wide public debate and understanding.
The Commission’s final report would be laid before Parliament, with the government required to provide a detailed response within three months, setting out next steps. Select Committees would hold government accountable for implementing recommendations.
All documents, evidence, and recommendations would be published online, with the final report explaining how public input influenced conclusions. The commission would have a communications strategy to foster national debate, with panel members actively promoting the recommendations.
The implications
The case for reform is a democratic one: at present, we do not usually get the government we vote for. Historically the UK has a broadly progressive electorate. The combined Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green vote share is usually larger than the Conservatives’, and polling shows that, under a proportional system where voters ranked parties, their voters would give second and third preferences to each other. So, a proportional electoral system would usually create a government coalition of broadly progressive parties, which would command moderate support from a clear majority. But under first past the post, only the first preference counts, so a divided left regularly loses to a united right.
When YouGov asked voters to rank the five parties in order, the Liberal Democrats only won 13% of first preference votes. But they were, overall, the most popular party, with 80% of voters putting them in their top three. By contrast, although 18% put Reform first, half of all voters ranking them at ‘fifth or lower’.
The numbers will have changed over the year, especially after Reform filled the news gap during the silly season. But this suggests that first past the post could give us a government supported by a passionate minority, and fundamentally opposed by a clear majority. Whatever one may think of Reform’s politics, that would be a profoundly undemocratic result.
If Parliament were to grasp this nettle now, we could have a new, and more democratic, electoral system in place in time for the next general election in 2029.
More from East Anglia Bylines
Subscribe to our newsletters
Each of our Bylines sends a newsletter every month and we also send out a ‘Best of Bylines, featuring a selection of the best articles from across the network
