Public Opinion on Electoral System Reform in Britain

The fallout from last week’s general election has resulted in renewed calls for electoral reform. These calls come from both sides of the political spectrum.

The Liberal Democrats have long advocated for proportional representation, arguing that it would make “seats won match votes cast” and facilitate “politicians having to work together.”.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage is also calling for change, as his party’s dispersed voter base meant that 14% of the national vote share only translated into five seats. Meanwhile, the Lib Dems’ 72 seats were won with just 12% of the vote.

When asked for views, independent readers emphasised the need for comprehensive electoral reform but couldn’t agree on what form that should take.

Several options were floated, including multiple forms of proportional representation, compulsory voting, and better political education.

While some insisted that first-past-the-post (FPTP) is democratic as it provides clear choices and stable governance, critics asserted that FPTP disenfranchises large portions of the electorate and often results in governments elected by a minority of voters.

Here’s what you had to say:

If there are a lot of different party candidates (as there were in the recent UK General Election), the winner will achieve victory from a smaller number of votes specifically for them than would be the case where only two or three different parties put up candidates to be elected. There is nothing undemocratic about having many different candidates. Nor is the current Labour win in any way undemocratic. The fact is that First Past the Post is very democratic precisely because it is so clear for whom each elector is voting.

Arranging a few candidates in order of preference is neither especially wise nor, in any serious way, more democratic. It may seem like a fair way of deciding. But in reality, a system of voting that asks electors simply to choose one candidate is more democratic (not less) than any other system because it reflects voter choice perfectly. The primary choice of voters is what matters most!

Swayne

It is clearly madness that any chamber of parliament can be filled with members of a party that two-thirds of the electorate voted against. That, whatever the technicalities and traditions that produce it, is an outrage, frankly, and it morally diminishes any claim that the said chamber is “democratically elected.”

As for PR, some variant (possibly a bespoke one yet to be devised?) must surely be the morally right solution. For me, the argument against some forms of PR that are ‘party-driven’ rather than ‘named-candidate’ misses a crucial reality: we vote for parties! In hundreds of constituencies, you could put a certain rosette on a donkey and they’d still get in. So letting voters pick a party and those parties divide up the jobs between their lists doesn’t offend my understanding of democracy. If your area gets an individual MP who is rubbish at constituent business, you should be able to raise a petition for another, albeit from the same party.

RadicalCentrist

It cannot be doubted that the current UK FPTP system disenfranchises a large part of the electorate. If you are remotely politically aware, you can be sure your vote will add up to nothing, and nothing will ever change. The recent 60% turnout is nothing short of pathetic. There are many kinds of better and more representative voting systems. In the UK, you do not have to look further than the Welsh and Scottish elections to the Senedd or Holyrood.

But the UK’s democratic problems do not stop at the botched FPTP system. You never had the courage to demand a strong written constitution and the power to uphold it. So, whoever snatches a Parliament majority with a minority vote holds almost dictatorial powers, can change the societal contract on a whim, and often does it without any checks and balances, just for the profit of themselves and their cronies.

old dane

Of course, any of the various forms of PR would produce a fairer, more democratic result. We can’t claim to be a democracy at all if a majority of the votes go to parties that do not form part of the government.

I have supported PR ever since Mrs Thatcher won an election with less than a majority of those voting, though the problem is far older than that. It’s high time we had governments made up of various parties that are required to work together collaboratively, rather than the usual yah-boo politics that leaves many in despair of politicians.

RichardHankins

Many have been calling for electoral reform, including a form of PR, way before Farage. Why does the media give him a platform? But the motivation for PR is to be fair to voters, to make every vote count, and not to favour any particular party.

If approx. 14% of voters voted for Reform UK, they should be represented in the same way that the nearly 7% who voted Green should be, whether or not you personally agree with their politics. Far better to debate and discuss issues within parliament than have extreme views pull parties to the extremes—usually rightwards. But a move to a proportional electoral system is only the first step; we also need a change in culture from confrontation to debate, co-operation, consensus and compromise—not 100% power to one party that thinks it has all the answers. So bring on coalitions. But we also need far more deliberative democracy to involve the electorate in decision-making, coupled with proper political education, and so much more!

TTern

We have to be very careful about changing the rules. There is no perfect electoral system; FPTP and PR both have benefits and downsides and I won’t even mention presidential elections.

I am a fan of the principle of the House of Lords but it does need word to maintain its independence, mainly by restricting the number of people elevated to the house. My instinct would be to limit the number of people in the upper house and PM’s are only allowed to elevate someone to a vacancy. The great strength of the upper house is that it is not elected and has no direct power; what it does have is experience and influence over the lower house. Without the participants’ need to consider being re-elected, they can vote on their own personal views.

The other major problem with electing the upper house is that if you do that, then you will have to give them power, which would have to come from the lower house, devaluing their ability to govern the country. (Look at other countries that have two elected houses, like the US, where it is very difficult to get anything through and the political make-up swings almost on an annual basis.)

MaccaVIII

FPTP is necessary for asserting control over the fringes of society. The stability of the state must come first and foremost to the emotional outbursts of the masses. The stable hierarchy must be preserved to ensure prosperity.

Dr. Kierin, Corbyn and his loonies out

TipYourLandlord

Proponents of FPTP usually state that it delivers a more stable government and then point to the unstable governments of the pure proportional systems produced in countries like Italy. Given the events of the last seven years, that hardly applies anymore. Countries with mixed member proportional systems (half elected by FPTP electorates and half from party lists to balance out the seats), such as Germany, Scotland, and New Zealand, do deliver very stable governments with the coalition fetter on some of the more extreme policies of the major parties.

NZ managed to bring about a change from FPTP to MMP by first having a Royal Commission in the mid-80s, which recommended it be put to the vote, followed by two referendums in the early 1990s and the first MMP election in 1996. A further referendum confirmed the move for MMP to stay in 2012. It can be done and should be done.

But please note that PR does not absolve voters of their responsibility; in fact, it increases the responsibility of the voter to assess their choices appropriately. NZ and I believe Germany, do not have the outrageously biased press that we have in the UK (that is not to say some cloaked bias does not exist) so the UK needs to sort out the media, particularly the Daily Fail and GB News. I would say the UK needs several Royal Commissions, one on the holding of the Brexit Referendum (which was nothing short of a disgrace), one on the voting system, one on the bias within the media and freedom of the press, plus several others for good measure.

Kiwi

Any system that allows a party to take two-thirds of seats with just one-third of votes is clearly broken and should be replaced as soon as possible. Starmer should establish a modern, streamlined version of a Royal Commission (incorporating citizens’ assemblies and online public consultation) to establish which form of PR best meets the needs and expectations of modern voters.

The Commission should report back in time for its recommendations to be implemented in 2028, the centenary of democracy’s last great upgrade in 1928, when women finally got the vote. Not only would that ensure that the people of this country finally had proper representation in Parliament, it would also give Starmer a place in history and ensure there was no prospect of the far-right sweeping into power in 2029 with one-third of the vote.

MarkKieranUK

During my 70-year lifetime, first-past-the-post has never resulted in a single-party government with a voter majority. In recent decades, this system has failed to produce a strong government. Instead, we have experienced chaos.

But some proportional systems transfer choice from the voter to the party. So if we are to change our voting system, we need to ensure that a new system moves the power of choice towards the voter.

In our current system, the parties that choose the candidate that the electorate is allowed to vote for. A single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies allows voters to choose between candidates from the same party and is more likely to reflect the party shares of the vote than FPTP.

While not strictly proportional, this would be a significant improvement.

PeteP

I am very pleased to see the backing of the last government, but any voting system that allows a party to achieve an overwhelming majority on the basis of 33.7% of the popular vote cannot be considered truly democratic. That proportional representation would allow entry of what some may see as unsavoury parties is not an argument for depriving two-thirds of the electorate of a say.

It is hardly surprising that so many voters are disillusioned. With its current majority, this Labour government could go down in history as the one that deepened democracy in this country.

Bubbler

Labor needs to take bold and dramatic action to secure a second term.PR that has been proven effective in the region could be an immediate and bold change for mayoral elections.

Benefits: It will increase legitimacy and trust in politics, show that Labour can be fair and representative even when it has a majority under first-past-the-post, cost next to nothing to implement, doesn’t require a referendum (the Tories proved that when they changed the rules for mayoral elections overnight), and furthermore, it will go down in history as one of the great political achievements of the 21st century.

On the other hand, if Labour fails to deliver, this could be a significant issue for Reform UK in future campaigning, and they may frame it as a war on the Westminster elite.

My advice: the time is NOW. There has never been much public thirst for electoral reform.

robinlayfield

I agree with what Ed Davey said over the weekend. Democracy is about fair representation of votes. That includes electing people who you disagree with.Ironically, the Lib Dems have 72 seats. This is very close to the number they would have gotten under PR.

50% for one party, 69% for another party, 43% for a third party, and 56% for a fourth party; however, the following number of seats were allocated:

You either believe in representative democracy or you do not. Personally, I believe in it.

49niner

If the number of seats the parties won reflected the share of the vote, the 2024 result would be roughly 219 Labour, 154 Tory, 93 Reform, 79 LibDem and 44 Green. Having a parliament that reflects how people vote would encourage more people to take part in elections. This is because their votes would carry more weight. (It should be compulsory.) Additionally, votes for smaller parties would not be considered wasted as they are now.

With proper PR (not the alternative voting system rejected in the dodgy 2011 referendum), tactical voting is reduced. FPTP is a stitch-up that has allowed Tories and Labour to share power for a century, usually governing more people who didn’t vote for them than did. It’s time for change, but it might not be a change Starmer would want as he’s a beneficiary of the status quo.

Bazerby

It’s always the same cry from the right when an election doesn’t go their way; the system is broken. They didn’t think it was worth changing in 14 years of Tory dominance, but now that it has advantaged labour, it’s in need of reform. The truth is, few English voters would accept the PR system. The outcry at having to bring photographic ID to prove your right to vote should highlight the strange relationship the English have with electoral reform. Photo ID has been mandatory in all Northern Ireland elections for over 30 years, and PR in the form of STV is the main form of voting in all their elections, with the exception of a GE.

The system in the UK needs reform. This could lead to a permanent coalition government. However, the citizens might not want this outcome.

In my view, it would lead to better government and fairer and more accountable legislation. Under STV, Reform on 14% may have picked up more seats if the transfers went their way, but equally, the Labour and Lib Dem transfers might just as likely keep them out.

The right might just regret it if they get their wish.

Hypernormalisation

Yes, we need a revised voting system. Something better, not just different.

The Scottish Parliament uses proportional representation. The Tory Party rejects this system but is willing to take seats in Holyrood.

What we need in the UK is separate elections for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Unicorn

We do need something different than what we have now. FPTP is the worst system.

Whether it’s AV, PR, STV, MMP, or any number of other acronyms,.

FPTP is not the best option for forming a government that the majority of the country supports. In terms of representation, FPTP is considered the least effective.

I am happy that Labor is in power.The fact that they received a third of the country’s votes is significant. However, the lack of equal representation in seats and powers seems undemocratic and wrong to me.

No wonder many people in the country didn’t vote. With so little influence on the composition of Parliament, it’s understandable that 40% didn’t bother casting their vote.

Someone182

Changing the FPTP voting system could be part of a constitutional reform package. This would involve scrapping the Lords and replacing them with an elected second chamber. It would also include increasing devolution. Alternative PR approaches could be considered.

Just transplanting PR onto what we have now could give us something even worse. Maybe we even need to look at the role of our head of state.

Thinking allowed

Compulsory voting would be a good start to addressing the issue. However, something more significant needs to change. Reform, receiving more votes than the Lib Dems but holding only a fraction of the seats, seems unjustifiable. (I’m not a Reform voter myself.)

Godricson82

FPTP is one of the worst methods of electing representatives. At its most extreme, it can come down to a form not unlike the “best of three.” It’s been well established that there will be little enthusiasm for changes instigated by the party in power. This is the case in many countries.

The methods of electing a government other than the one we have can be more representative. For example, proportional representation and a single transferable vote. However, none of these options are perfect. Forming alliances, although necessary, can lead to instability, short-lived partnerships, and hinder efficient governance.

So, yes, our FPTP method needs replacing, but doing so will be all but impossible.

One thing that can be done to make FPTP more representative is to make it a legal responsibility to cast a vote. This responsibility applies even if a person votes for “none of the above.”

DesPear

PR with two caveats:

1) A minimum threshold of the public vote to participate in parliamentary discussion. This stops time being wasted by tiny vote-holding parties.

2) A higher threshold of the public vote to participate in parliamentary voting. This stops parties with relatively low vote percentages from having undue influence through vote-selling.

Get the numbers on those rights, and that should solve most of the issues PR can have.

Aimeryan

I do not think proportional representation will work in any of its forms. A minority government may need the support of a party with a small number of MPs when passing new legislation, such as tax reform. They would want concessions in order to agree to vote with the government. A party with minimal popular support can have greater influence over parliament despite having a small number of MPs. Other parties, despite having greater representation, may hold less influence.

Because Labour was predicted to have a large majority, people considered reform as an option. With the Tories seen as unelectable, people believed they could effectively use reform as a protest vote. If they thought Reform would have significant influence in parliament, they would not vote for them. We saw this in France.

Lastly, all parties need to understand the low turnout and find a way to get more people to the polls.

Spent

Parliamentary systems do not work well with proportional representation. You end up with governments beholden to minority parties, and these are often extremists. Look no further than the knee to see how screwed up that can get. Preferential voting works well since it allows for a protest vote without wasting one. However, unlike here in Australia, preferencing should be optional.

And scrap the House of Lords. That nonsense doesn’t belong in a modern democracy.

Wordee

The biggest problem in the UK is the ignorance of the public about how other systems function. Another significant issue is the undemocratic nature of the UK, which is not well understood by the public.

We have been brainwashed with ‘mothers of parliaments, etc. etc.’

In fact, the UK ‘democratic’ system is not fit for purpose in the 21st century.

The upper house is anything but democratic, religion should be kept out, the lower house is not much better.

A written constitution is a must. We should study the constitution of Germany. It was written following a national political disaster.

There will be no levelling up until we adopt a federal system, again as in Germany.

We must rid ourselves of feudal practices of ‘honours’; these only encourage a class-ridden society.

If we retain the monarchy, transparency is a must. This means no more keeping their finances secret. Instead, their money and investments should be openly disclosed.

By the way, I’m a liberal!

Read more :

Meet the Key Players in the New Cabinet Arrangement

The Future of British Politics

Grim Election Outlook for Sunak

Exploring the Tory National Service Scheme