Proportional representation (PR) describes a category of electoral systems where the share of seats won by each political party closely reflects its share of the total votes cast.

This principle contrasts with plurality/majoritarian systems like first past the post (FPTP), which is used for UK general elections. Under FPTP, the candidate with the most votes in each constituency wins the seat, regardless of the overall national vote shares.

Proponents argue that PR is fairer to smaller parties, as their share of seats more closely matches their share of the vote.

The choice of voting system is a subject of significant and ongoing political debate. A 2011 referendum on replacing FPTP with the alternative vote (AV) system was decisively rejected by 67.9% of voters. However, the issue remains a live one, particularly within the Labour Party and among supporters of smaller parties.

Polling conducted by YouGov after the 2024 general election showed that 49% of the public would support a switch to a more proportional system, with 26% opposed (favouring retention of FPTP).

Since the beginning of the 2000s, each major form of proportional representation has been in operation in some form within the United Kingdom. Elections to the Scottish parliament and Senedd Cymru (Welsh parliament) are conducted under the additional member system (AMS). Elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly are held under the single transferable vote (STV) system. And, prior to the UK’s departure from the European Union (EU), elections to the European parliament were held through the party list system.

The case for proportional representation

Fairer representation

The primary argument for PR is that it provides a fairer translation of votes into seats. Proponents argue that a parliament’s composition should reflect the preferences of the electorate.

Under FPTP, smaller and medium-sized parties with geographically spread support are significantly under-represented. In the 2015 general election, Ukip polled 12.6% of the ballots cast but won just one of the 650 seats.

In the 2019 general election, Green parties won 2.7% of the UK vote but also only secured one seat (0.2%). Similarly, the Liberal Democrats won 11.5% of the vote but only 11 seats (1.7%).

In the 2024 general election, Reform UK won 14.3% of the vote but only five seats.

Under first past the post, parties on the rise are typically awarded a “winner’s bonus”, which can help convert a plurality of votes into a parliamentary majority; meanwhile, losing parties incur a “penalty”, reducing their seat share more sharply than their vote share.

Reducing wasted votes

PR systems avoid so-called “wasted votes”. Under first past the post, any vote cast for a losing candidate, or any vote cast for a winning candidate above the number they needed to win could be considered “wasted”.

FPTP creates “safe seats”, where the same party almost always wins. In such constituencies, votes cast for the incumbent beyond what they need to win, or votes cast for losing candidates, can be seen as having little or no impact on the outcome.

Together, the phenomena of wasted votes and safe seats are said to fuel voter apathy. FPTP also encourages “tactical voting,” where citizens vote for a “lesser of two evils” candidate, rather than their first choice, in the hope that they could defeat their least-preferred candidate from winning.

Constituency link

Supporters of proportional representation argue that while FPTP creates a clear constituency link, it often fails to produce genuinely representative outcomes – even at the level of individual seats. Because FPTP operates on a plurality basis, MPs can be elected with a relatively small share of the vote – sometimes 30% or less – leaving the majority of constituents without a representative they supported.

Even where an MP secures an overall majority, minority interests within the constituency may still be marginalised. By contrast, proportional representation systems that use larger, multi-member constituencies increase the likelihood that voters can identify a representative who reflects and articulates their concerns.

Consensus government

Due to PR’s propensity to produce “hung parliaments”, the system also forces parties to construct a wider consensus for policy-making.

Some advocates see this as a benefit, arguing that coalition governments necessitate negotiation, compromise and a broader consensus in policymaking. This, they claim, leads to more stable and less adversarial politics.

The case against proportional representation

Strong and stable government

Proponents of FPTP claim that its greatest strength is its tendency to produce strong, single-party majority governments with a clear mandate to govern.

The FPTP “winner’s bonus” exaggerates the victory of the winning party, often delivering a clear winner with a working majority in the House of Commons. Critics of PR argue that the coalition governments produced by the system are often weak, indecisive and prone to instability.

The constituency link

Opponents of PR argue that it weakens or severs the direct link between a single MP and a defined geographical constituency. FPTP provides a single, identifiable MP for every geographical area. This creates a direct line of accountability between a representative and their local constituents, who can seek their help and “kick them out” at the next election if they are unhappy with their performance.

Many PR systems, especially party-list systems, use large multi-member constituencies, which critics argue dilutes this personal accountability.

Accountability and horse-trading

Under PR, governments are often formed through post-election negotiations between party leaders, not by the electorate directly. This process can give disproportionate power to smaller, “kingmaker” parties that may hold the balance of power in hung parliaments.

It is also argued that voters cannot decisively “kick out” an unpopular government in its entirety, as the dominant party may be able to form a new coalition and remain in power.

Some supporters of FPTP stress that, under the system, coalitions are effectively formed before a general election and within the major parties themselves. Parties such as the Conservatives and Labour can contain significant ideological diversity; these permanent coalitions, it is argued, are more transparent to voters than the temporary coalitions produced by post-election bargaining.

Simplicity: FPTP is straightforward for voters to understand. Voters choose one candidate. The result in each constituency is also usually known quickly after an election. Proponents argue that this is not the case for more proportional systems such as the single transferable vote (STV).

Types of proportional representation systems

Additional member system (AMS)

• Where it’s used (UK): The Scottish Parliament. This system was used to elect the Senedd Cymru (Welsh Parliament) before the 2026 election.

AMS is a hybrid system that combines FPTP with a proportional top-up. Voters cast two votes: one for a candidate in a local constituency (elected by FPTP), and a second for a political party in a larger region. A number of “additional members” are then elected from regional party lists to make the overall distribution of seats more proportional to the share of the regional party vote.

In Scotland, voters are issued two separate ballot papers: one to elect 73 constituency MSPs via FPTP, and a second “regional” ballot to elect 56 additional MSPs.

These additional seats are distributed across eight regions, with seven MSPs per region. They are allocated using the D’Hondt formula, which takes into account the number of constituency seats a party has already won. The system is designed to “top up” parties that are under-represented in the constituency results.

AMS is also used in Germany’s Bundestag, New Zealand’s House of Representatives, and Italy’s Senate and Chamber of Deputies.

Single transferable vote (STV)

• Where it’s used (UK): Elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly; local government elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

STV is a proportional and preferential system, which uses multi-member constituencies. In Northern Ireland, a total of 90 MLAs (members of the legislative assembly) represent 18 constituencies. Under the system, voters rank candidates in order of preference (1, 2, 3, etc.). To be elected, a candidate must reach a “quota” – a specific threshold of votes calculated by the Droop Quota formula.

Once a candidate reaches this quota, their surplus votes are transferred to the voters’ next preferences. If no one reaches the quota, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed.

STV is also used in the Australian Senate, the Tasmanian House of Assembly, and the upper house of India’s federal Parliament.

Party list system

• Where it’s used (UK): Senedd Cymru (Welsh Parliament) elections. This system was used for European Parliament elections in Great Britain from 1999 to 2019.

In a party-list system, voters choose a party rather than a candidate. Each party presents a list of candidates, and seats are allocated to each party in direct proportion to their share of the vote in a multi-member constituency or region.

In a so-called “closed list” system, the party determines the order of candidates. “Open list” systems differ in that voters may cast votes for specific candidates on a party list, influencing which candidates are ultimately elected.

The Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Act, which received royal assent in June 2024, means that from May 2026, the Welsh Parliament will be elected under a full closed party lists system.

Under this new structure, the number of members will increase from 60 to 96. The country will be divided into 16 six-member constituencies; voters will no longer vote for individual candidates, but for a party list. Seats will be allocated proportionally within each constituency using the D’Hondt method.

Party lists are also used, in varying forms, for elections in Israel, Brazil and South Africa.

FPTP disproportionality and the 2024 general election

The 2024 general election resulted in the most disproportionate outcome in the history of British democracy.

Keir Starmer’s Labour Party secured a landslide majority, winning 411 seats in the House of Commons – far exceeding the 326 required to form a government. This parliamentary “super-majority” was achieved with just 33.7% of the national vote. This represents the lowest vote share of any majority government in UK history. Labour’s vote share only increased by 1.6 points compared to their historic defeat in 2019.

The geographic “efficiency” of Labour’s support allowed the party to almost double their seat count (based on the notional 2019 result, accounting for boundary changes). The party won many constituencies where they improved their standing and/or the vote on the right was split between the Conservative Party and Reform UK (allowing Labour to come through the middle).

Conversely, Labour’s vote share declined in a number of seats it had historically treated as strongholds, particularly urban areas. Under FPTP, Labour could “afford” to lose votes in such constituencies, while still retaining the seat.

Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, received 4,117,610 votes, representing 14.3% of the national total. Despite being the third most popular party (on national vote share), its support was spread broadly but thinly across the country. As a result, Reform UK won only 5 seats, or 0.8% of the total in the House of Commons.

The Liberal Democrats, under Ed Davey, also produced a remarkably “efficient” result. With 12.2% of the vote – less than Reform UK – the party secured 72 seats. This represented a gain of 64 seats; the party’s vote share, however, only climbed by 0.6 points to 12.2%. The Liberal Democrats concentrated their resources on specific constituencies in the south of England, resulting in the modern party’s best-ever seat total.

In Scotland, the Scottish National Party (SNP) suffered from the “loser’s penalty” imposed by FPTP (the opposite of the so-called “winner’s bonus”). A drop in their vote share to 30% (in Scotland) saw their seat count collapse from 48 to just 9.

• It took approximately 24,000 votes to elect a Labour MP.
• It took 49,000 votes to elect a Liberal Democrat MP.
• It took 56,000 votes to elect a Conservative MP.
• It took 79,000 votes to elect an SNP MP.
• It took 485,000 votes to elect a Green MP.
• It took 823,000 votes to elect a Reform UK MP.

Overall, approximately 58% of voters in the 2024 election backed candidates who were not elected – the highest percentage of “unrepresented votes” on record.

According to research from the Electoral Reform Society (ERS), 554 (85%) of MPs were elected without the winner getting more than 50% support in the constituency.

The 2015 general election result in Belfast South

The 2015 general election result in the constituency of Belfast South demonstrates how the FPTP system can produce extreme outcomes in a fragmented, multi-party landscape.

The incumbent MP, Alasdair McDonnell of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), was returned to the House of Commons with 9,560 votes, representing just 24.5% of the total votes cast in the constituency.

Despite securing the seat, therefore, McDonnell was supported by fewer than one in four voters in the constituency. In total, 75.5% of the voters in Belfast South had cast their ballots for other candidates.

• Alasdair McDonnell (SDLP): 24.5% (elected)
• Jonathan Bell (DUP): 22.2%
• Paula Bradshaw (Alliance): 17.2%
• Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin): 13.9%
• Rodney McCune (UUP): 9.1%

Under the “winner-takes-all” logic of FPTP, McDonnell’s narrow plurality was sufficient for victory. His winning vote share of 24.5% set a record as the lowest percentage of the vote ever secured by a successful candidate in a UK general election.

In the 1992 general election for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, four major parties – Liberal Democrats, Labour, SNP and Conservative – were separated by only 3.41% of the vote.

The Liberal Democrat candidate, Russell Johnston, won the seat with 13,258 votes (26.0%). The Conservative candidate, who finished fourth, still secured 22.6% of the vote.

The 2024 general election produced the third-lowest winning vote share ever recorded in a UK general election.

In South West Norfolk, the Labour candidate, Terry Jermy, won with 11,847 votes (26.7%). Three candidates (including former Conservative prime minister Liz Truss) won over 22% of the vote, while four candidates secured over 14%.

History of the electoral reform debate

The Salisbury settlement: fashioning first past the post

The Third Reform Act (1884) and the accompanying Redistribution of Seats Act (1885) helped fashion the electoral landscape that largely endures today.

The 1884 act expanded the franchise by establishing a uniform franchise across both urban boroughs and rural counties. In order to ensure the legislation’s safe passage through the House of Lords, the Liberal prime minister, William Gladstone, entered into negotiations with the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, the Conservative leader.

The Arlington Street compact, the product of Gladstone and Salisbury’s negotiations, transformed the UK’s electoral map from a patchwork of multi-member boroughs into a uniform system of single-member constituencies. Salisbury feared that flooding the county constituencies with new voters without redrawing electoral boundaries would entrench a Liberal majority in the country. Large multi-member seats could see traditional Conservative voters in rural areas – landowners and farmers – effectively drowned out.

Salisbury, having extracted a crucial concession that isolated Conservative-leaning suburban and rural areas from Liberal-voting city centres, agreed not to veto the proposed extension of the franchise in the Lords.

The compromise came at the cost of a pro-PR Liberal minister.

Leonard Courtney, the financial secretary to the Treasury, was a leading advocate of proportional representation (specifically the single transferable vote). Courtney believed that single-member districts under a “first past the post” electoral system would undermine the representation of minority voices.

On 4 December 1884, Courtney delivered his first commons speech following his resignation. Courtney described single-member constituencies as a dangerous “new departure from the old lines of the constitution”, that would fail to secure the “balance of the judgment of the people.” He cited election data from New York and Ohio to show how a party with a minority of votes overall can win a majority of seats if their opponents’ votes were concentrated in one ward while theirs are spread efficiently.

Responding from the government frontbench, Gladstone began by praising Courtney’s intellect and sincerity, thanking him, caustically, for having “inspired life into what I might almost call, but for the effect of his speech, an army of dry bones.”

The prime minister dismissed Courtney’s proposed STV scheme as a pons asinorum (a “bridge of asses”). Gladstone mocked the former minister’s “short and simple explanation of an hour long”, suggesting he could not “find an entry for it into the minds of ordinary and average people of the country.”

John Lubbock, founder of the Proportional Representation Society (later the Electoral Reform Society), described the Redistribution of Seats Bill as a “danger to the Liberal cause”.

The Proportional Representation Society was formed in 1884 to campaign for an alternative to first past the post.

The road to reform: Asquith’s royal commission and home rule

Liberal prime minister H.H. Asquith established a royal commission to inquire into the electoral system in 1908.

Two years later, the royal commission on systems of election delivered a unanimous recommendation in favour of the alternative vote. The commission concluded that it was “unable to recommend proportional representation in existing circumstances for election to the House of Commons.”

The commission reported: “We recommend the adoption of the alternative vote in cases where more than two candidates stand for one seat. We do not recommend its application to two-member constituencies, but we submit that the question of the retention of such constituencies, which are anomalous, should be reconsidered as soon as opportunity offers.

“Of schemes for producing proportional representation, we think that the transferable vote would have the best chance of ultimate acceptance, but we are unable to recommend its adoption in existing circumstances for elections to the House of Commons.”

J. Renwick Seager, secretary of the registration department of the Liberal Central Association, was among those who gave evidence to the commission.

Seager expressed his opposition to PR on the grounds “that the number of bores and cranks in the House would be largely increased, apart from the personal interests of trade and religion.”

Responding to arguments surrounding minority representation, he argued that it was “duty of the minority to turn itself into a majority by reason and in course of time.”

The Liberal Party had won a landslide majority at the 1906 election, but the two elections in 1910 both produced hung parliaments. The royal commission report landed between the 1910 elections – at a time when the government was preoccupied with conflict between the commons and Lords.

The government under Asquith as prime minister did not pursue electoral reform for Westminster elections. Later in its lifespan, however, the government embraced the principle of proportionality and minority representation for the new Irish legislatures created in the wake of the First World War.

The doomed Government of Ireland Act 1914, the first UK law providing for devolved government, proposed an Irish Senate to be elected by STV, and an Irish House of Commons to be primarily elected by FPTP (164 members), and partially by STV (31 members).

The 1914 act was successively suspended in a series of six month periods until 1920, when it was repealed by new home rule legislation. The Government of Ireland Act 1920, or Fourth Home Rule Bill, recognised what would become Northern Ireland (six north-eastern counties in Ulster) and the south of Ireland (the 32 counties that would later constitute the Irish Free State). The act envisioned that both polities would exercise self-government in the United Kingdom as “Northern Ireland” and “Southern Ireland”.

The 1920 act stipulated that elections to the lower chambers of the Northern and Southern parliaments should be conducted under STV. A proportional system was intended to provide electoral opportunities for nationalists in the North and unionists in the South.

Elections were held on 24 May 1921 under these rules. Irish republicans used the elections collectively to constitute the second Dáil.

Following the 1925 Northern Ireland general election, when the governing Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) lost eight seats, legislation was passed replacing STV with first past the post. The sole exception was the Queen’s University constituency, which continued to be elected under STV until it was abolished in 1969.

The Representation of the People Act 1918

The Representation of the People Act 1918, widely remembered for its landmark extension of the franchise to women, also served as a major battleground for arguments over electoral reform.

The legislation, which emerged from a cross-party speaker’s conference (1916-1917), sought to remedy the perceived disproportionality and anomalies associated with the first past the post system. The conference agreed a proposal that would have introduced the single transferable vote (STV) for multi-member boroughs and the alternative vote (AV) for single-member constituencies. The debate on electoral reform dominated much of the passage of the Representation of the People Act; by contrast, the legislation’s transformative expansion of the franchise itself proved relatively uncontentious.

Upon receiving the report of the speaker’s conference, the prime minister, David Lloyd George privately denounced proportional representation as a “device for defeating democracy, the principle of which was that the majority should rule, and for bringing faddists of all kinds into parliament, and establishing groups and disintegrating parties”.

Publicly, Lloyd George responded that he had “no personal opinion” on the matter of electoral reform. However, he said that PR was not “an essential part of the scheme” and urged the conference not to press their case on reform at the “expense of the whole of their scheme”.

Unconvinced by the merits of proportional representation, Lloyd George permitted debates on electoral reform in the Representation of the People Bill to be conducted through a series of free votes. The issue of proportional representation thereby pitted senior government ministers against each other, including George Cave, the anti-PR home secretary, and Arthur Balfour, the Conservative former prime minister and pro-PR foreign secretary.

Support and opposition to STV mostly cut across party lines; however, when it came to AV, the Conservatives were strongly against, while Liberal and Labour MPs were mostly in favour.

Supporters of reform, which now included Asquith, argued that FPTP was the cause of a “disease in the body politic” – the systemic exclusion of minority representation. Asquith cited Wales, where Conservative and Unionist minorities were “hardly” represented; Ireland, where Unionists in the south and west “never returned a single member”; and large cities, such as Birmingham, where Liberal and Labour minorities were “practically without representation.”

Asquith offered his “hearty support” to this part of the bill.

Conservative MP and serving minister Lord Robert Cecil argued that the existing system exaggerated swings of opinion and produced “sweeping” majorities. This, Cecil stated, had damaged the “prestige of the House of Commons”. Cecil was the son of the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury (Robert Gascoyne-Cecil), who had helped introduce the single-member constituency system with his compact with Gladstone.

Opposition to electoral reform was led by senior Conservative MP Austen Chamberlain, who argued that proportional systems would “hamstring majorities” and undermine the link between MPs and their constituents.

Chamberlain framed the debate as a choice between minority representation and effective government. He argued that some advocates of PR believed that “nothing but a minority ought ever to be represented”, and dismissed STV as a system that “no fellow can understand”.

Conservative MP Montague Barlow argued that large multi-member constituencies would destroy the “close personal contact” between an MP and their constituents.

Former home secretary John Simon contended that the next parliament should mirror the realities of Britain’s emerging pluralistic political culture – referring, implicitly, to the rise of the Labour Party “The next parliament is a parliament which ought to contain representatives of more than just two alternative points of view”, Simon said.

There was an element of electoral self-interest to Simon’s argument. The alternative vote system would prevent the two parties on the left splitting the vote.

In the end, an amendment was ultimately passed, by a majority of 32, that deleted the bill’s references to the single transferable vote.

This decision triggered a prolonged period of parliamentary conflict (“ping-pong”) between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The upper chamber repeatedly sought to reinsert provisions for proportional representation. On top of this, peers remained deeply hostile to the alternative vote; the 4th Marquess of Salisbury (James Gascoyne-Cecil), the elder brother of Robert Cecil, argued that AV amounted to “clandestine intrigue and arrangement under which false results are produced” – a reference to its capacity to manage competition between the established Liberal Party and the rising Labour Party.

Liberal MP Edward Hemmerde argued that without AV, the House would not be “a microcosm of the nation”.

Leading Liberal statesman Herbert Samuel, speaking in favour of AV, condemned the fact that there were “members sitting in this House, who notoriously, to their own knowledge and to the knowledge of all of us, do not on the main questions of the day represent the desires of the majority of their constituents.”

By early 1918, the standoff reached a crisis point. The Lords refused to accept a bill with AV but no PR; the commons refused to accept a bill with PR but no AV.

The deadlock was only broken on 6 February 1918, the final day of the parliamentary session. To save the wider franchise reforms from collapse, parliament reached a compromise: the alternative vote was abandoned entirely, and PR was subjected to a royal commission, which would consider the possibility of a PR trial in 100 select seats.

The House of Commons rejected the royal commission’s experimental scheme just months later in May 1918.

The famous Representation of the People Act ultimately left FPTP intact. However, the questions MPs grappled with in this wider debate – the nature of representation, and whether the House should stand as a “microcosm of the nation” or an “efficient engine of government” – continue to inform political discourse.

Under the 1918 Reform Act, the only seats which would not be elected under the FPTP system were the multi-member university seats; subsection one of clause 20 required these to be elected by the single transferable vote. This system survived until the Representation of the People Act 1948, passed by Clement Attlee’s Labour government, abolished university representation.

Moreover, the debates over the Representation of the People Act 1918 helped convert the Liberal Party to electoral reform. The Liberal manifesto for the 1922 general election featured a commitment calling for the “re-adjustment of our electoral system by the introduction of proportional representation.”

The 1931 reform bill

At the 1929 general election, Labour emerged as the largest party for the first time with 287 seats on 37.1% of the vote. The Liberal Party, led by Lloyd George, won 59 seats on 23.6% of the vote. (It would mark the last time when a third party polled more than one-fifth of the popular vote until 1983.)

The Conservatives secured 260 seats on 38.1%. It reportedly took 89,850 votes to elect a Liberal, but only 33,845 votes to elect a Conservative and 28,906 votes to elect a Labour MP.

In the hung parliament, Lloyd George’s Liberal Party held the balance of power and tentatively agreed to prop up a minority Labour administration, led by Ramsay MacDonald. Since leaving office in 1922, Lloyd George, leading a truncated party, had come to regard electoral reform and a more equitable distribution of seats as necessary to any broader Liberal recovery.

Reflecting in 1925, he told C.P. Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian: “Someone ought to have come to me in 1918 and gone into the whole matter. I was not converted then. I could have carried it then when I was prime minister. I am afraid it is too late now.”

On 13 June 1929, Lloyd George told a meeting of Liberal MPs that the “mandate of the government would end as soon as it failed to pursue a Liberal policy.” He clarified that his party’s attitude to the government would “be influenced by the line which it took up on the question of electoral reform.”

The king’s speech on 2 July included a declaration that the MacDonald government would “institute an examination of the experiences of the election so that the working of the law relating to parliamentary elections may be brought into conformity with the new conditions.”

The prime minister subsequently established the cross-party Ullswater committee, so-called after its chairman, former commons speaker Lord Ullswater (James Lowther), to look into electoral reform. Lowther had presided over the 1916-1917 speaker’s conference.

The conference did not produce any consensus. But after some stalling on MacDonald’s part, the government introduced the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill, which proposed the introduction of the alternative vote as a compromise measure. Liberal support for the package remained lukewarm.

Addressing the commons at the bill’s second reading, J.R. Clynes, the home secretary, argued that “our system has been good, but good must give way to better, and this bill, we believe, proposes a still better system along the line of advance in democratic franchise.”

He said the alternative vote would “prevent the election of a candidate against the wishes of the constituency”.

Clynes conceded that “proportional representation has many adherents on the ground of its apparent simplicity and attractiveness”. But he outlined the government’s view “that it is inapplicable, that it is unsuitable within the English parliamentary system of government.”

Simon Hoare, speaking from the Conservative frontbench, dismissed the bill as a product of Lib-Lab machination. “In order to get his majorities in the House of Commons he must have 50 votes from below the gangway”, Hoare said, “and in order to have those 50 votes from below the gangway he must introduce a measure of electoral reform.”

Herbert Samuel, speaking for the Liberal Party, referred to the alternative votes as a “second best policy”.

He stated: “It is said that the second best is the enemy of the best, but it has also been very well said that although the second best is the enemy of the best, it is also the enemy of the third best, of the fourth best, and of the worst of all; and this second best is the enemy of the present system, which, in our view, is the worst of all.”

The bill received its second reading by 295 votes to 230.

In a blow to the Liberal Party, the chairman presiding over the committee stage ruled that amendments to introduce the single transferable vote were “outside the scope of the bill” and therefore not admissible.

Speaking during the bill’s committee stage, Austen Chamberlain was reminded “of a saying of Oscar Wilde regarding Whistler”.

Chamberlain declared: “‘Whistler had no enemies, but he was intensely disliked by his friends.’ It would not be quite true to say that this clause has no enemies; I am one, but it is true to say that it is intensely disliked by its friends.”

The clause allowing for AV was nevertheless carried by 277 votes to 251.

At third reading, Clynes argued that the “growth of parties in our present-day electoral system justifies this change in the direction of a wider choice, in order that no longer shall the government of this country be conducted on a minority basis.”

Winston Churchill, a Conservative MP since 1924, mocked the alternative vote as “the worst of all possible plans”.

He declared: “It is the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal that the government have embodied in their bill. The decision of 100 or more constituencies, perhaps 200, is to be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates.”

The bill ultimately secured its third reading in the House of Commons on 2 June 1931, by 278 votes to 228.

The Conservative-dominated House of Lords remained deeply hostile to AV, viewing it as a cynical partisan measure. Peers passed wrecking amendments, including one that would have applied AV only to London and boroughs with populations over 200,000.

Then, before the deadlock between the Lords and the commons could be resolved, the Labour cabinet split over a package of austerity measures proposed in response to the 1931 financial crisis.

MacDonald initially sought to resign as prime minister, but was invited by King George V to lead a National Government including both Conservative and Liberal ministers. MacDonald recognised that this formula would exorcise the political instabilities of the previous two years, which had found some expression in the arguments over electoral reform.

The new administration, formed as a temporary solution to the deteriorating financial situation, abandoned the AV bill. On 6 October 1931, parliament was dissolved for an election, and the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill lapsed. The National Government, upon securing the greatest landslide of modern times, did not return to the subject of electoral reform.

The 1970s Liberal resurgence

The February 1974 general election, called by the Conservative prime minister, Edward Heath, produced a hung parliament – the first since 1929. While the Conservatives won a slightly larger share of the popular vote (37.9%) than Labour (37.2%), Harold Wilson’s party secured 14 more seats, winning 301 to the Conservatives’ 297.

This electoral inversion echoed the result of the 1951 election, when the Conservatives under Winston Churchill won 321 seats with 48.0% of the vote, securing a parliamentary majority of 16; Labour, despite finishing ahead by 230,000 votes (on 48.8%), won only 295 seats.

In 1974, however, arguably the most dramatic story was the performance of Jeremy Thorpe’s Liberal Party, which gained over six million votes – 19.3% of the total – but won only 14 seats.

That was Britain’s inconclusive answer to Heath’s defiant challenge: “Who governs Britain?”

Heath exercised his constitutional right to attempt to remain in post as prime minister. He offered the Liberals a coalition with a cabinet seat for their leader and another “speaker’s conference to consider the desirability and possibility of a change in our electoral arrangements.”

The proposition added: “We should then be ready to co-operate in seeing that the conclusions and recommendations of the conference were put to parliament in the customary way.”

Thorpe, under pressure from Liberal activists, could not accept these terms.

The Liberal Party’s manifesto for the February 1974 election had stated: “Liberals would introduce proportional representation by the single transferable vote for all elections. The present electoral system buttresses the discredited ‘two-party system’ of confrontation.”

The manifesto also referred to the “success of proportional representation in Northern Ireland in uniting a divided community”, citing this as “strong testimony for its introduction in Britain as a whole to heal the rifts in our society.”

Between the 1970s and early 1980s, proportional electoral systems were indeed repeatedly used in Northern Ireland, even as they were resisted elsewhere in the UK. The ill-fated Northern Ireland Assembly that first met in July 1973 was elected using the single transferable vote. This same system was used to elect the Northern Ireland constitutional convention in 1975, and the Northern Ireland assembly established in 1982.

Reform proposals: devolution and Europe (1973-1979)

In October 1973, the royal commission on the constitution, widely referred to as the ‘Kilbrandon commission’, published its final report, concluding a four-year inquiry into the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. The commission’s work constituted the first major study of the constitutional challenges posed by multi-national governance and rising national consciousness. The majority report recommended the establishment of 100-member assemblies in Scotland and Wales, elected for four-year fixed terms under the single transferable vote system.

The report stated: “The single transferable vote system is one, and in our view the most satisfactory, of many which aim to give the parties representation in proportion to the numbers of votes they receive.”

It added: “It is easy to exaggerate its complexities and the disadvantages arising from the use of multi-member constituencies. The system was operated in Northern Ireland between 1920 and 1929, apparently without serious difficulty for the electorate or for administering officials, and has again been used in elections this year to the new Northern Ireland Assembly and local authorities.”

The commission’s memorandum of dissent (minority report) also recommended the devolved assemblies (including five in England) be elected under STV. The electoral system was therefore a rare instance of consensus among the commissioners.

The minority report stated: “There will be a single chamber assembly of about 100 members. They will be elected on the single transferable vote system of proportional representation. This is so we can be sure that minorities will be fully represented – which is particularly important in those areas where recent voting patterns suggest one party could be in a ‘perpetual’ majority.”

The eventual devolution schemes, however, did not accept Kilbrandon’s recommendations on the electoral system.

In September 1974, Harold Wilson’s government published a white paper entitled Democracy and Devolution: Proposals for Scotland and Wales, which proposed assemblies for Scotland and Wales, both elected under FPTP.

On 23 November 1977, an amendment to the Scotland Bill to introduce the additional member system, spearheaded by Labour MP John Mackintosh, was defeated by 290 votes to 107 – a majority of 183.

During the debate, Mackintosh argued that first past the post had been “roughly proportional” and widely accepted in the UK during the 1950s and 1960s, when Labour and the Conservatives together amassed around 95-97% of the vote. But he warned of the problems that would arise in Scotland, “where three major parties run neck and neck and two minor parties run behind”, under the same system.

Mackintosh, who balanced his parliamentary duties with his role as a professor of politics at the University of Edinburgh, argued that a party could “scoop an absolute majority” with only 36% of the vote in such a fragmented landscape – “and that a Scottish executive could govern Scotland on the basis of just over one third of the popular vote for four years.”

The Labour MP said he could think of “no more serious damage that we could do to an assembly than to tie this undemocratic can around its neck.”

He therefore advocated for a West German-style additional member system, with 100 members elected in constituencies and 50 elected from party lists to ensure proportionality.

Former Conservative cabinet minister Enoch Powell, who spoke in opposition to the amendment, argued that FPTP remained “the natural and appropriate way of selecting one person unambiguously to represent one community”. He warned that under PR, “there is no representative whom any constituent can hold uniquely responsible or accountable”.

Tam Dalyell, a fervent opponent of devolution, argued that proportionality in the voting system would act as a “motorway to a separate state” by forcing coalitions with the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP).

He declared: “I say that an assembly with a PR system is an even faster escalator to separation than an assembly without PR. PR will make it quicker and more certain that in fewer years and months we shall get a separate Scottish state.”

Conversely, Jeremy Thorpe pointed to the example of Quebec, where, under first past the post, “four parties competed and the nationalist party, with two-fifths of the votes, got two-thirds of the seats.”

Conservative MP Jill Knight warned that the party lists could be filled by “pop stars”, and/or those who did “not had the slightest intention of working afterwards if elected”.

Conservative MP Malcolm Rifkind (a future Scottish secretary) expressed his support for the amendment, noting that unlike Westminster, the proposed Scottish assembly would be unicameral (a single-chamber legislature), lacking the “revising” influence of the House of Lords. He argued that a proportional electoral system would provide a check on executive power in a unicameral assembly.

John Smith, the Labour minister in charge of the devolution legislation, set out the government’s opposition to the amendment. He argued that PR is “much more likely to produce coalition governments”, which he claimed often lack “authority, stability and consistency.”

Moreover, he warned that AMS would create “two classes of members”, whereby the constituency representatives would “be directly elected and therefore to speak with a little more authenticity”.

Smith was also forced to justify the fact that the government was arguing against PR/AMS for the devolved assemblies, and simultaneously proposing to introduce a proportional scheme for elections to the European parliament.

He argued that the difference lay in the purpose of the elections. “When elections take place to the European assembly we shall not be electing an administration”, Smith stated, “but under the provisions of the Scottish assembly we shall be electing an administration.”

In late 1977, the House of Commons considered a government proposal to introduce PR for elections in Great Britain to the European parliament. The debate was the result of pressure from the Liberal Party, which was lending support to Jim Callaghan’s minority Labour government.

A joint statement announcing the “Lib-Lab pact”, issued in March 1977, committed the government to subject forthcoming legislation concerning elections to the European parliament to a free vote.

The European Assembly Elections Bill included a procedural device that allowed the proposed first past the post system and proposed PR system to be set out in the same bill. This would leave the choice of determining the electoral system to a free vote of MPs during the bill’s committee stage. Speaking at second reading, William Whitelaw, the shadow home secretary, referred to this mechanism as a “constitutional monstrosity”.

Addressing the House at committee stage, Merlyn Rees, the home secretary, explained: “The committee can… make a choice between the two systems. The government favour the regional list system, but government supporters will have a free vote on the issue.”

The Labour Party was split over their preferred system; Tony Benn, the eurosceptic energy secretary, was a notable opponent of proportional representation. Labour MP Frederick Willey, who tabled an amendment to remove the proposed PR system, argued that now was not the time “to allow the thin end of the wedge of change”.

Rees insisted that the distortions of FPTP would be more pronounced in election to the European parliament. “The simple majority system is excellent where there is a comparatively large number of constituencies”, he stated.

“However, the fewer the number of constituencies involved, the more dramatic is the effect of a swing… Whenever elections are held for Europe on the basis of 81 seats, a marginal swing would have a profound effect on the number of people from each party that would go to Europe.”

Heath, the former prime minister, was among a minority of Conservatives who argued that FPTP was not “suitable for only 81 seats with electorates of half a million or more.”

Jeremy Thorpe declared: “The truth is that the first past the post system is one of the most disproportionate systems ever devised by man…

“[Willey] made the best old-fashioned, conservative speech that I have heard for a long time – the first past the post system was proved and was part of our tradition. Like roast beef and cricket, it was all part of the English way of life. But we are electing an assembly for Europe.”

However, Willey’s anti-PR amendment was ultimately approved by 319 votes to 222 – a majority of 97.

In the 1979 European parliament elections, Great Britain elected 78 MEPs using first past the post, while Northern Ireland elected three MEPs by the single transferable vote. As a result, the UK (with the exception of Northern Ireland) was the only member state not to use a proportional electoral system.

Realignment and the reform debate (1981-1997)

The campaign for electoral reform gained greater momentum in the 1980s, spearheaded by the SDP-Liberal alliance. The Social Democratic Party (SDP), which split from the Labour Party, threatened to “break the mould” of British politics. A total of 28 Labour MPs defected to the SDP over the course of 1981. The SDP, which quickly formed an alliance with the Liberal Party, also posed a major threat to the Conservative Party under Margaret Thatcher’s leadership.

The famous Limehouse declaration, which precipitated the SDP’s formation, called for the “realignment of British politics” and referred to the “sterile and rigid framework” of the political system.

The SDP-Liberal alliance’s manifesto for the 1983 election, Working Together for Britain, described the introduction of proportional representation as “the linchpin of our entire programme of radical reform.”

It added: “Alone of the political parties the Liberal Party and the SDP recognise that our economic crisis is rooted in our political system… The ‘first past the post’ voting system ensures the under-representation of all those who reject class as the basis of politics.”

The alliance proposed a scheme based on the single transferable vote.

The SDP-Liberal alliance secured 25.4% of the popular vote at the 1983 general election – a mere 2.2 points short of Labour. The vagaries of FPTP translated this to only 23 seats. The SDP-Liberal alliance failed to improve its standing at the 1987 general election; the result precipitated an official merger of the SDP and Liberal parties, producing the Liberal Democrats.

The Liberal Democrats won 17.8% of the vote but only 20 seats at the 1992 general election.

In the wake of three general election defeats (1979, 1983 and 1987), the Labour Party established the Working Party on Electoral Systems, chaired by politics professor Raymond Plant. The so-called Plant report, published in April 1993 after a fourth election defeat, rejected FPTP as an option for the proposed devolved legislatures in Scotland and Wales, and recommended party list PR for European parliament elections and a second chamber to replace the House of Lords at Westminster.

The Plant report stated: “If first past the post were to produce a string of hung parliaments, then its basic rationale in terms of single party government would disappear, a point which we made in our first interim report.

“We believe that we should recognise the facts of political geography and go for a more principled system of election, which can clearly be defended, particularly within the devolved system of representation which Labour proposes.”

The report was critical of STV on the grounds of its complexity, arguing that “we believe that it is highly paradoxical that a system which appears to be more democratic on a proportional view of democracy may rest on procedures which few might understand.”

Plant added: “If we see elections as an important aspect of citizenship then this point has to be taken seriously.”

For elections to the House of Commons, the commission voiced support for the supplementary vote (a modified version of AV). Responding to the report, the Labour leader, John Smith, committed Labour to include a referendum on the electoral system in the party’s next manifesto.

The Labour Party’s annual conference in 1993 endorsed Plant’s proposals. This, then, was the position Tony Blair inherited as Labour leader upon succeeding Smith in 1994.

In September 1996, Blair told the Economist that he was personally “unpersuaded” by the case for PR.

He stated: “I personally remain unpersuaded that proportional representation would be beneficial for the commons… It is not a simple question of moving from an ‘unfair’ to a ‘fair’ voting system.

“An electoral system must meet two democratic tests: it needs to reflect opinion, but it must also aggregate opinion without giving disproportionate influence to splinter groups. Aggregation is particularly important for a parliament whose job is to create and sustain a single, mainstream government.”

But Blair’s party remained split over the issue, and the 1997 manifesto ultimately retained the previous referendum commitment. The document proposed both a referendum and an “independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first past the post system.”

The Jenkins commission and Blair’s reforms (1997-2007)

In December 1997, the joint cabinet committee (JCC), which included senior Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians, launched the Independent Commission on the Voting System, chaired by Lord (Roy) Jenkins, co-founder of the Social Democratic Party.

The Jenkins commission was given a broad terms of reference, allowing it to “consider and recommend any appropriate system or combination of systems in recommending an alternative to the present system for parliamentary elections to be put before the people in the government’s referendum.”

It was instructed to “observe the requirement for broad proportionality, the need for stable government, an extension of voter choice and the maintenance of a link between MPs and geographical constituencies.”

The commission reported in September 1998. It proposed a shift from the first past the post electoral system to an alternative vote ‘top-up’ scheme or AV+. Under the system set out by Jenkins commission, 80-85% of the commons would be elected under the alternative vote (AV), a ranked choice, constituency-based system. The remaining 15-20% of MPs – the ‘top-up’ – would be elected under a party-list proportional representation system.

The commission concluded: “FPTP exaggerates movements of opinion, and when they are strong produces mammoth majorities in the House of Commons. Since the war it has done this for Labour in 1945, 1966 (less sweepingly) and 1997, and for the Conservatives in 1959, 1983 and 1987.”

It added: “The commission’s central recommendation is that the best alternative for Britain to the existing first past the post system is a two-vote mixed system which can be described as either limited AMS or AV top-up.

“The majority of MPs (80 to 85%) would continue to be elected on an individual constituency basis, with the remainder elected on a corrective Top-up basis which would significantly reduce the disproportionality and the geographical divisiveness which are inherent in FPTP.”

The Liberal Democrat leader, Paddy Ashdown, referred to the recommendation as “a historic step forward”. But critics of the Lib Dem leader noted his inability to secure a commitment to a more straightforward proportional electoral system, the party’s official policy.

MPs considered the recommendations of the Jenkins commission during a debate in November 1998. Opening the debate for the government, Jack Straw, the home secretary described the proposed AV+ system as “ingenious”, but noted that it had “no parallel anywhere in the world”.

He remarked that MPs could be “forgiven for not fully anticipating its prospect.”

Straw reaffirmed his own support for retaining FPTP, stating that he was “unpersuaded of the case for change”. He also criticised the proposed “top-up” element of the system, pointing to the need for “spares” in the event an MP elected under this mechanism died.

Conservative frontbencher Liam Fox referred to the Jenkins commission as a “rigged commission – a sham process – which might as well have begun with its conclusions and worked backwards towards its remit.”

Fox argued that first past the post offered voters a clear and decisive mechanism for removing unpopular governments. “Our system – sadly, on some occasions – gives voters an easy way to send the removal vans to No. 10, as they did last year”, he said.

“We cannot resent that.”

Veteran Labour MP Tony Benn restated his opposition to proportional representation, arguing that the strength of the British electoral system lay in the direct accountability between MPs and their constituents – whom he referred to as “our employer”.

Benn warned that reform risked weakening this relationship, stating: “Any element of proportionality, which destroys that link, could lead to people being governed by a government whom nobody had voted for, because nobody would know the basis of the coalition on polling day.”

Benn argued that pre-election coalitions (those formed within the Labour and Conservative parties) were “transparent”, ensuring “people can see them developing and know what they are voting for and what their own member thinks”.

He concluded: “Direct representation is the delicate thread that links the people with their government and the basis of it is that they elect a man or woman they know, can argue with and can get rid of. Do not think that minorities remain minorities for ever”.

The former cabinet minister urged his colleagues to “listen” to the people and “not try to impose on them a pattern that will provide a permanent coalition and remove real choice”.

In the late 1990s, following successful referendums, the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly were established and elected using the additional member system. The Good Friday Agreement created the Northern Ireland Assembly, elected by the single transferable vote.

The Greater London Authority Act 1999 established a London Assembly elected by AMS, with a 5% threshold, alongside a directly elected mayor chosen using the supplementary vote.

The Blair government also legislated to introduce proportional representation for elections to the European parliament. The European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 was passed only after the government invoked the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949; the legislation encountered significant resistance in the House of Lords, which rejected it on six occasions.

This came after the de Gucht report, approved by the European parliament in 1993, which called on the UK to elect at least one-third of British MEPs using a proportional system. The report effectively proposed AMS for the UK, with two thirds of MEPs elected by the FPTP system and a third plucked proportionally from a party list.

Gordon Brown’s ‘deathbed conversion’ to reform

The eruption of the MPs’ expenses scandal reignited debate over political and electoral reform. In May 2009, the health secretary, Alan Johnson, pressed Gordon Brown to revisit the pledge for a referendum on AV+, the centrepiece of the Jenkins commission report. Writing in the Times, Johnson argued that voters should be offered a choice between the “elegant” AV+ system and first past the post.

Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, also expressed support for renewed consideration of electoral reform. Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, writing in the Guardian, called on the government to revive its commitment to a “referendum on the Jenkins proposals.”

Brown ultimately answered these calls. Ahead of the 2010 general election, the prime minister attempted to force legislation through parliament requiring a referendum on the alternative vote by October 2011.

In an article for the Guardian newspaper, Brown wrote that he was “determined to do everything I can to take on and persuade those who want to deny the people the chance to decide [on a new voting system] at a referendum, and I will build support across the commons, the Lords and the country.”

The prime minister referred to a “progressive consensus in favour of change”. The declaration formed part of his strategy to prepare the ground for a potential Lib-Lab pact in the event of a hung parliament.

On 9 February 2010, MPs approved an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill requiring an AV referendum in the next 20 months by 365 votes to 187 – a majority of 178. A separate amendment proposing a referendum on the single transferable vote was decisively rejected, by 476 votes to 69.

Addressing the House, former Conservative leader Michael Howard referred to Brown’s “deathbed conversion to electoral reform”.

The AV referendum proposal, however, encountered significant opposition in the House of Lords, with peers threatening to block the entire bill unless the electoral reform clauses were removed. With a general election imminent, Brown had little choice but to drop the referendum provisions.

Labour’s manifesto for the 2010 election reiterated this commitment to “hold a referendum on introducing the alternative vote for elections to the House of Commons.”

The document also pledged to consult on proposals for an “open-list proportional representation electoral system” for a reformed second chamber to replace the House of Lords. Labour committed to hold “referenda on reform of the House of Commons and House of Lords… on the same day, by October 2011.”

The 2011 alternative vote referendum

A referendum on the alternative vote formed a central part of the coalition agreement between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats following the 2010 general election.

The coalition agreement read: “We will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the alternative vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies.

“We will whip both parliamentary parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the alternative vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum.”

Clegg had described AV as a “miserable little compromise” in response to Brown’s pre-election referendum push. Nonetheless, the referendum’s inclusion in the coalition deal was a significant concession on the part of the Conservatives. The proposal was hated by many of its MPs. This meant the political enthusiasm was clearly identifiable with the ‘No’ campaign throughout the contest.

The anti-AV camp also included key Labour figures such as John Prescott, Margaret Beckett and John Reid.

David Cameron, the prime minister, articulated the ‘No’ case in a campaign speech in February 2011. In it, he questioned why supporters of “the BNP or Monster Raving Loony Party should get their votes counted more times than supporters of the Conservatives or for that matter Labour or Liberal Democrats.”

He added: “It could mean that those who are courageous and brave and may not believe in or say things that everyone agrees with are pushed out of politics, and those who are boring and the least controversial limping to victory.

“It could mean a parliament of second choices. We wouldn’t accept this in any other walk of life. Can you imagine giving the gold medal to someone who finishes third? No. Of course not.”

The No campaign also successfully framed the referendum around cost, with a widely-used if controversial claim that changing the system would cost £250 million. One notable poster, depicting a newborn baby, read: “She needs a maternity unit NOT an alternative voting system.” Another ad carried a picture of a soldier, with the message that £250 million would be better spent on body armour.

The ‘No’ campaign also sought to associate AV in the public mind with the Liberal Democrats and their unpopular leader. One poster depicted Clegg holding a sign saying he would oppose any increase in tuition fees, with the message: “AV will lead to more broken promises”.

The ‘Yes’ campaign, championed by the Liberal Democrats and supported by the Labour leader Ed Miliband, argued that AV would make MPs work harder for votes, reduce the need for tactical voting, and ensure candidates had to secure broader support to win a seat.

In the end, AV was rejected by a margin of 67.9% to 32.1%. Turnout for the referendum was 42.2%. The No vote was comfortably in the majority in every UK region – but voters in England were more opposed to changing to AV than voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The acrimonious campaign and the resounding defeat were major political blows to Clegg as deputy prime minister. It also marked an acute point of tension between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the 2010-2015 parliament. The relationship between the two parties would never quite recover to its pre-referendum peak.

Responding to the result, Clegg said the result was a “bitter blow” at the end of a “disappointing day” following election results elsewhere. The AV referendum coincided with elections to the Scottish parliament, national assembly for Wales, Northern Ireland assembly and local authorities across England.

Lord Mandelson, a supporter of electoral reform and New Labour political strategist, said AV supporters had paid a “big price” for staging the poll on the same day as the first elections to be held since the general election.

In his 2019 memoir, For the Record, Cameron suggested the anti-AV campaign could be summed up in three ‘Cs’: “costly”, “complicated” and “Clegg”.

New momentum? The debate since 2011

In the wake of the 2011 referendum, the Labour manifesto for the 2015 general election did not contain a specific commitment to electoral reform. There was a reference to setting up “a people-led constitutional convention to determine the future of UK’s governance.”

The Liberal Democrat manifesto included a commitment to introduce the “single transferable vote for local government elections in England and for electing MPs across the UK.”

The 2015 election resulted in the first Conservative majority government in 23 years. Cameron’s party secured 330 seats in the House of Commons, surpassing the 326 required for an overall majority. This was achieved with 36.9% of the total votes cast (11.3 million votes), an increase of 0.8% from their 2010 performance.

Under the mechanics of FPTP, this 36.9% vote share translated into 50.8% of the seats, providing the “winner’s bonus” necessary to form a majority government. Ed Miliband’s Labour Party, meanwhile, saw its vote share rise slightly to 30.4%, but its seat count fell by 26 to a total of 232. This translated to 35.7% of the seats.

The UK Independence Party (Ukip), led by Nigel Farage, received 3,881,099 votes, representing 12.6% of the national total. Despite being the third most popular party by vote volume, its support was spread across the country rather than concentrated in specific areas. Consequently, the party returned only one MP (Douglas Carswell in Clacton). Ukip stressed its support for “a new, proportional voting system” in its 2015 manifesto.

It was subsequently calculated that it took 34,000 votes to elect a Conservative MP, 302,000 to elect a Liberal Democrat and 3.9 million to elect a Ukip MP.

Neither the 2017 nor 2019 Labour manifesto included specific references to electoral reform.

In September 2022, the Labour Party backed moving to a fairer proportional voting system for UK elections at its annual conference. The motion stated that the UK’s political system has “catastrophically failed to represent people’s wishes, needs and votes”. It argued that first past the post does “long-term damage to the health of our democracy”.

The Labour Party’s 2024 general election manifesto did not feature a commitment to reforming the electoral system for Westminster elections.

However, electoral reform was referenced in the Liberal Democrat, Green Party of England and Wales, and Reform UK manifestos. The Lib Dem manifesto included a commitment to introduce “proportional representation by the single transferable vote for electing MPs, and local councillors in England.”

The Reform UK manifesto stated: “Large numbers of voters have no representation in parliament and new parties are shut out of the political system. Voter turnout could be some 10% higher with PR. A referendum is needed.”

In November 2024, the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) for fair elections – a cross-party group of MPs and peers that campaigns for electoral reform – was established. The group’s stated aims include replacing the first past the post (FPTP) voting system with a form of proportional representation. The APPG was supported by former Conservative cabinet ministers Rory Stewart and Amber Rudd among others upon its launch.

The APPG is backed by over 130 MPs.

In December 2024, the House of Commons voted in favour of the Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill – introduced by Liberal Democrat frontbencher Sarah Olney under the 10-minute rule procedure. The bill sought to “introduce a system of proportional representation for parliamentary elections and for local government elections in England”.

A total of 138 MPs supported the bill – with 136 opposed. Notably, 59 Labour MPs backed Olney’s bill.

Introducing the bill, Olney told the House: “First past the post is a broken and unfair system. This summer, the Labour party won a landslide election victory, securing 63% of seats in the House of Commons in return for just 34% of the vote.

“The system leaves millions of voices unheard and creates a divisive, adversarial political climate where collaboration is discouraged and accountability is often sidestepped.”

In January 2025, Rushanara Ali, the then democracy minister, told the commons that there are “no plans” to change the FPTP for national contests.

Ali said: “The [FPTP] system, while not perfect, provides for… a direct relationship between members of parliament and their local constituency.”

In September 2025, the APPG for fair elections published a “ready to go” blueprint for an independent review of the FPTP electoral system. The group’s chair, Labour MP and former frontbencher Alex Sobel, described its proposal as “a ready to go plan to independently review how parliament is elected, promote a national conversation, and build consensus on a way forward”.

At Labour’s annual conference in 2025, the mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, said that moving to a more proportional electoral system “would lay the ground for a new politics [and] a better conversation with the public”.

In May 2026, over 70 Labour MPs signed an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill, calling on the government to establish a “national commission on electoral reform”. Tabled by Alex Sobel as chair of the fair elections APPG, the amendment aimed to force a rethink of the first past the post voting system.

At the time, Sobel described FPTP as “one of the biggest examples of a broken status quo in UK politics.” He invited colleagues to join this “common sense call to take a fresh look at how parliament is elected in modern Britain.”

Quotes

“But let’s be clear, when there are more hung Parliaments there will be more haggling and horsetrading between politicians – both before and after elections. There will be gamesmanship between parties in different constituencies as they try to stitch up second preference votes. And there could well be an occasion where we have a genuine second-choice government.” – David Cameron, February 2011, campaigning to keep FPTP system during the referendum

“Electoral reform is no longer a topic confined to political science lectures or Liberal Democrat fringe meetings. You don’t need a degree in psephology or an unhealthy predilection for bar charts to know that our politics is broken. I believe our collective task today is – at long last – to deliver electoral reform – the one reform that can open the door to the full-scale democratic reform of our country that is so badly needed.” – Ed Davey, November 2022

“It is very much my view that our out-dated first past the post electoral system is not fit for purpose and we will campaign with anyone and everyone to change this electoral system.” – Nigel Farage, July 2024

Additional resources

• The Electoral Reform Society: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/
• House of Commons Library – Alternative Vote Referendum 2011: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/rp11-44/
• Make Votes Matter: https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/
• House of Commons Library – Briefing on Electoral Systems: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9052/