Politics Home noted this yesterday:
As the political landscape in the UK becomes more fractured, some politicians are already worrying about the chaos it could unleash at the next general election.
For example, with an increasing number of viable candidates and parties in contests across the country, traditional tactical voting strategies that some parties have relied on could be upended.
The term 'proportional representation' appeared in the article, but never once was it noted that there are people in the UK, let alone UK political parties, who think that we should use such a system in this country (a video is coming on this, soon). Instead, it is assumed that we must continue to live without an election system that, in Europe, we only share with Belarus, and which very often produces the entirely absurd and unrepresentative electoral outcomes that we have seen if late, including Labour's 'landslide' victory last summer.
My question is a simple one, and is what is this denial about? Why can't the obvious questions about how this absurd situation might be resolved be asked?
We need proportional representation, and we need it now.
Most especially, we need a single transferable vote system with multiple-member constituencies, and we need that now.
Why isn't this on the political agenda?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
PR is a huge threat to the political party system which would make it much harder to control by the rich and vested interests. That to me is why it will be resisted.
Monopoly Power for the few is attracted to monopoly power for the many (sovereignty), who purchase it and harness it increasingly for their narrow interests.
We don’t have proportional representation because people would lose power.
Starmer knows this, and proves again that he is putting himself before the interests of the people, and Blue Labour has lost the values of traditional Labour supporters.
Surely, people would gain power?
Sorry, badly phrased. Some of the people who currently have power, like Starmer, would lose the power they currently have.
People in general gain power – but crucially party leaderships lose it, because they generally come to power as part of coalitions of smaller parties, with negotiated programmes and less personal control over both policies and personnel.
I completely agree that we need a single transferable vote system with multiple-member constituencies and we need it now.
I hope we can avoid party lists, which gives too much patronage to party leaders. To do this I think we need proportional voting within the multi member constituencies. I’d like to see more independents. Perhaps this could be achieved by counting, for the purposes of proportional representation, independents as a “party” (to prevent them always being excluded by fragmentation of the vote).
Perhaps, more controversially, I wonder if it is really necessary for ministers to be MP’s. Doing so deprives their constituents of representation because they are too busy being ministers. It also prevents able people from becoming minister if they can’t face the dishonesty and hipocracy that seems to be a necessary part of being an MP today’s. If ministers were not MPs then MPs might feel more able to perform their proper task of strategic thinking and voting with their conscience as they promised their electorate. Of course, ministers would have to be accountable, and direct able by MPs, perhaps through committees.
Whatever, a profound shakeup of our political system is badly needed.
@Tim Kent
Independents get their fair share of seats under STV – look at Scottish local elections or the Irish Parliament (Dail) for examples.
Why? The Establishment parties fear never being able to rule by themselves again.
Many of the rest of us fear they will.
Could you say why you prefer STV over, say, MMP like they have in Germany and New Zealand?
Yes
I’ve written at length on this – see `Fair votes in practice’ – https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.15310
Among other things, List-PR and MMP both have safe seats, and in practice are generally less party-proportional – plus making it almost impossible for Independents.
I really do not approve of lists – for the reasons you note
Thanks for this, Dennis. Your paper has persuaded me that STV is superior to MMT.
I too prefer MMP. It seems to me to have a number of advantages:
1. It preserves the idea of having a single local MP, which helps to maintain the population’s connection to politics (when we were in the EU, far more people were aware of who their MP was than who their MEPs were).
2. The voting forms are relatively simple and quick to fill in — one vote for your preferred local candidate, and one vote for the national party whose views you prefer. Note that this allows popular locals to be supported, even if not aligned with one’s preference for the national party.
3. Having a threshold of say 5% of the national vote is an adequate safeguard against ‘wrecking’ or very regional parties growing powerful.
4. It provides real and clear choices to voters, and gives them a better chance of reassurance that their views are being represented in government. I think that’s important: at the moment at least 70% of the population is being governed by a party and political ideology they did not vote for.
5. It seems to work better than most systems at providing stable Governments.
So the SNP and Plaid Cymru should be excluded? Really?
I think not.
Kim SJ
“It preserves the idea of having a single local MP, which helps to maintain the population’s connection to politics (when we were in the EU, far more people were aware of who their MP was than who their MEPs were).”
No one I have ever met gives a toss about a local connection with an MP. It is something politicians claim matters to voters as it helps those politicians keep their seats.
I agree, Candy
My experience of this system in action for Holyrood elections shows it to be unsatisfactory for a number of reasons.
It is not as simple as one vote for your preferred candidate and one for the party. Tactical voting is necessary as if one party (the SNP in recent elections) win a lot of constituency seats, they will get very few on the list.
It is quite galling when the second and third candidates in the constituency election – Labour and Conservative in my constituency – get elected anyway, because they are high on their respective parties lists.
The quality of the list candidates is very poor in my opinion. They have a meal ticket if not for life, for a very long time, so long as they toe the party line and do not get deselected.
Agreed
“Chaos” feels like rather too mild a term considering just how few votes might be required by a party to form a government under similar conditions to the present.
I have discussed the issue of what form of PR we ought to adopt (assuming that the possibility of addressing this issue actually arises) quite a lot as not all systems are equal. In the UK discussion appears dominated by STV, a system used by a mere 3 nations to elect their national government. Compared with party-list (both closed and open) PR which is employed by well over 100 nations – including the robust Scandinavian democracies. Consensus is not proof of fact but it is a very significant factor that is being largely ignored by the pro-PR organisations in the UK, at least as far as I have experienced. All systems have their pros and cons and none of them are even close to perfect but it would be both useful and fair to have such a large – and well informed discussion in full rather than having just one form being presented as ‘the option’.
I mention this as I dislike tactical voting (it is also another situation where division can be sown) as it does not reflect the actual desires (being the relatively least worst viable option, rather than what people actually want) of the electorate and is evidence of an electoral system with major flaws in its capacity to accurately represent the wishes of the electorate. The STV system (while an undeniable improvement on FPTP) continues with this flaw as well as generating bias towards certain part of the electoral spectrum. Personally I would prefer that we adopt the mixed-member proportional system (such as they utilise in NZ) that is simple to use and minimises bias. I am still very much open to evidence-based arguments.
We do not want to give control to parties.
It really is that obvious.
Why are parties so bad? As a voter, I want to know what philosophy and priorities I am voting for. Party manifestos are the easiest way to achieve that. They also introduce a higher probability that the views (and thus the party) that I support are represented in a coalition government, which must surely increase a sense of involvement in, and ownership of, the political process.
Kim SJ
Sorry, I am not picking on you, but
You like the idea of a local connection between the MP and the constituents AND you like the party system?
Because I pay attention, I may choose a candidate because their stated views and actions demonstrate that they think the way I think. But when they have to vote on an issue their own beliefs and values go out the window because the party wants them to vote the opposite way. That is not my view of democracy.
No need to apologise Cindy. The delightful thing about this blog is that we can have frank discussion of the issues without getting personal. I am not yet fully persuaded that the German/NZ approach is flawed, but the STV case has been well put, to the extent that I will accept the judgement of the majority with good grace. And at least none of us is in favour of D’Hondt! 😛
@Chris W
What do you mean by “The STV system … continues with this flaw as well as generating bias towards certain part of the electoral spectrum” ?
STV is about as free from tactical voting as is possible, unlike List-PR and MMP.
Do look at my paper: it is an attempt to contribute to just what you ask for –
“it would be both useful and fair to have such a large – and well informed discussion”. It evaluates the rival systems against basic criteria for a good voting system. There are also several organisations, e.g. Make Votes Matter, that argue for principles rather than a specific system; though they are rather hampered in discussing specific systems because they are trying to win over MPs who like the idea of party control 🙂
Although I’m in favour of Proportional Representation, I’m also worried about the emphasis sometimes placed on it as a solution to the UK’s dysfunctional politics and democratic deficit.
While I think PR is better than FPTP, I don’t think it changes much in itself. FPTP systems produce a duopoly of ‘broad church’ parties that tend to take turns at government; PR systems produce lots of smaller parties, that indeed more accurately reflect the electors’ views, but which generally only get into government as part of ‘broad church’ coalitions. If you look at what governments have actually achieved under the various systems in Europe over recent decades, I’d say it’s true that PR has led to better government – but not actually that much better.
Reforming the funding of political parties would do more, I think – and many of the countries seen from the UK as better-governed are different in this respect, as well as voting systems – but I’d say equally important are facilitating media impartiality (by which I mean true impartiality – telling the truth regardless of vested interests – not the BBC idea of balancing opposing views) and decentralisation – passing far more funding and spending power, and decision-making, down to local levels.
I’ve just written a long comment on a comment in the Times on the Sheffield tree-felling saga, (2014-18), and its successful resolution with the protestors’ leadership incorporated into decision-making by the council. This, and other bruising encounters with Sheffield City Council, have left me strongly opposed to decntralisation. And some people from other cities and towns have the same reaction.
I agree with Geof Cox …there is a lot more that needs rethinking, besides just the voting system. Donations, for one …money for electoral purposes should NOT be a factor unless you want rich people to run the show. There should be a very reasonable cap on electoral expenses, and a close watch kept on parties to ensure they are keeping to the rules. The UK is better at this than the USA …at least all parties get an equal amount of TV time for their party political broadcasts, for example.
But media bias is horrendous.
If you live in Scotland, like I do, you realise that only ONE media outlet (The Sunday Herald, now no longer printed) endorsed independence in 2014, and that only ONE media outlet claims to endorse independence now (The National.) The SNP which has governed Scotland successfully for the past 18 years …and is popular enough to be elected to that position time after time …has virtually no media support. In fact, it is attacked (or ignored) day after day by all the other media—including our supposedly impartial BBC. This is astonishing, given the fact that, to date, they have captured nearly half of the total Scottish vote.
Of course this tsunami of negativity, one-sided stories, and even made up ones, bolstered by intentionally misleading headlines and news clips has an effect on how people vote. If it didn’t, the unionist-owned media wouldn’t bother.
In order to be truly representative, excessive amounts of money should be removed from the electoral process—and that includes corporate-financed media.
Proportional representation isn’t a perfect solution (the tail can be tempted to wag the dog, when coalitions get formed) but it offers more potential for cooperation than the first-past-the-post system.
I don’t agree with the notion that people don’t care about a good, local MP, though. Being a popular MP usually means that MP has been visible in the constituency, and diligent in helping constituents with their individual issues …as well as voting the way their electors wanted them to vote. It never hurts to work hard for your constituents, does it? Being part of their community is sometimes very important to the voters.
I can personally attest to former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy, now sadly deceased, as being an incredibly good constituency MP. His was not in my constituency, but I had occasion to interact with him on an issue involving a local community I visit a lot, and I am a frequent visitor to the area he used to represent. He was much loved there. And I am an SNP member—not of his party at all.
Our own recently deceased SNP MSP, Christina McKelvie, was very popular locally, and worked tirelessly for her constituency, and had the ‘common touch,’ which is often very important to voters. I’m sure there are many other elected MPs and MSPs whose involvement in local issues made them popular with their constituents, no matter what party they were from.
Thanks
Thanks.
Readers might like to be reminded of your post last year that included my map of how STV could be implemented for the UK parliament:
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/07/07/what-multi-member-constituencies-might-look-like/
Thanks
I still think those constituencies are too small.
The size can easily be changed. But there’s a trade-off between proportionality and local representation, and where is best to strike the balance is a difficult question – with the answer depending to some extent on population density (e.g. Highlands vs. inner cities).
Ireland achieves better representation of minority parties with its variable size 3-5 member constituencies than Northern Ireland with its all-the-same 6-member (more recently 5-member).
Noted
Thanks
I admit to liking seven member seats
The dreadful first past the post voting system is only element of the governance of this backward country that needs to be dragged into the nineteenth century.
Based on current voting shares, which would change in a general election, Farage could easily control a hung parliament with Labour AND Tory support. Only the Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies might block this. Emphasis on MIGHT.
Much deeper change is needed: a written federal constitution to keep the UK together, the end of absolute power (including Crown prerogative and the Privy Council, both of which are undemocratic), the ability of the people to force subjects onto the agenda that the Establishment would rather avoid, a much stronger elected investigations body.
Yes, ordinary people want redistribution of power. But have no power to make this happen.
It’s not on the agenda because the main parties and their wealth backed controllers don’t want such a redistribution of power.
I remember the last PR referendum was dwarfed by the royal wedding event, more talk about street parties and Kate’s dress, look there’s a squirrel! That and fear mongering about worst past the post is the best bulwark against fascism. What a joke!
Look forward to your video, and learning about systems which truly shares power with people. will it address the current broken, corrupt party-funding system which basically shuts out new parties and sharing power with ordinary people?
The largest group of MPs in any APPG are in the APPG on political reform:
https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2025/05/09/uk-electoral-voting-system-unrepresentative-dangerous-cross-party-mps/
Remember that single transferable vote has already been used in elections to the UK House of Commons: in the University constituencies, from 1918 to 1949
See e.g. the combined English Universities constituency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_English_Universities_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
There is a precedent, then.
Having stood in two parliamentary elections in an urban constituency & a pre PR Euro election, my initial comment, not that I am objecting to PR is that trying to campaign in some of those constituencies – in my case Somerset , let alone some of the Scottish and Welsh ones would be gruelling and expensive.
I do wonder if there should be some sort of ‘primaries’ for the selection of candidates?
It was tried by the Toriesconstituency with an open primary all constituents with a vote, voting. The first was Totnes, & the resulting candidate fell out with her Whip fairly quickly. She’s not a Tory anymore.
(Totnes, Dr Sarah Woollaston a local GP.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_parliamentary_primaries
Its the Whipping that needs reform, to disempower the party machines.
I have long wished for proportional representation, in the hope that the inevitable coalitions would lead to consensus-building, even if slow. Now I feel it is our only hope of averting disaster in the short term, with long term damage. I look forward to your video. This has to be as high a priority as highlighting inequality and lack of well-conceived government spending, as we know where FPTP is headed.
Lots of interesting comments in response to your article…. most by people far more expert than me.
Nevertheless, I would make two points.
First, there will always be a balance between having “your” local MP who you can engage with and “list” MPs to give the correct proportions. In my experience, the connection between local MP and constituents is, in most cases, exaggerated – . what matters most (for the MP) is the “connection” with the local constituency party. Local engagement is done at the minimum required. So, I am relatively relaxed about losing the “local connection”.
Second, “the best is the enemy of the good”. We must avoid Judean Peoples Front syndrome (forgive the Life of Brian reference but it describes the issue so well) – if electoral reformers are seen to fight like ferrets in a sack over the the minutiae the general electorate will be put off and vote (in a referendum, if one is required) for the status quo.
Richard, surely this is because we live in a post democratic state?
Changing the dysfunctionality of voting, will not change the state!
Personally, I see it as a flux. Capitalism and governance, will consume itself, and destroy anything in its path.
That leaves us!
Maybe we should ask, what comes next?
I would quite like to try democracy. I am not sure we have, as yet.
I’m not sure if this has a name, but I think we could achieve proportional representation and also maintain the constituency link by setting a minimum votes threshold to elect an MP (say 30k), and allowing candidates from the same party in neighbouring constituencies to “pool” their votes in order to reach this number if needed.
So people would vote as they do now, and if their candidate gets 30k votes they get elected as they do now and they are the MP for the constituency. If however, their candidate falls short, and there is a candidate for the same party who has also fallen short in a neighbouring constituency, but collectively they have 30k votes between them, then one of them (the one with the larger vote count) would be elected as MP for the larger combined constituency. This could be repeated for larger constituency groups up to the region level, allowing even parties with a low overall vote share to still elect a small (but proportional) number of MPs.
This system would mean a vote is never “wasted”, and people could vote for the local candidate they think best. Even if their candidate doesn’t win locally, their vote will still help elect someone from that party in the same region.
I suspect having MPs representing different sizes of overlapping constituency might make this seem complex, but I think voters could handle it. They would have an MP from each party representing their constituency, the only question being how local that MP is, e.g. are they very nearby or are they representing the whole region.
This avoids party lists, ensures that every vote nationwide is meaningful, maintains the geographical connection of every MP to a group of constituents, and gives a proportional outcome in parliament.
Would love to hear any thoughts, especially if there is some fatal flaw in this or if it’s a known idea/system!
Sorry this is not PR
It is a proposal that cannot work
Of course the media do not allow the right questions to be asked, deliberately eradicating them as even an option.
That’s why the Reform party is on the TV a lot, and the Independent Alliance (who have the same number of MPs), have no representation at all.
Agreed
Agreed!
Whilst we are arguing immigration and tariffs, where is the green agenda?
It seems a distraction to me!
As soneone who’s spent 31+ years in a country with a very sensible manner of counting votes, I can see how desperate Labour and Tories are to cling onto their outdated system.
PR means, as others have noted, waving goodbye to 100% power over the country.
It seems the parties prefer a few years in the wilderness over working together for the good of the nation.
A few notes on the Dutch party-list system. Not favoured by Richard and many commentators I see!
I think it’s slightly naïve to bemoan the notion of safe seats and ‘seasoned professionals in parliament for life’ – you need some form of a stable base in politics to keep a party going. I don’t think it helps any nation to have a new set of mps elected each 4 years, you need a certain amount of security for policies that should be stretched over a longer period than 1 parliamentary cycle.
Sure, the favoured members are higher on the list, but that’s often down to competence and experience, plus appeal to the public. We do have a preferred candidate option on the ballots though, so with enough votes somebody lower down the list can enter parliament all the same.
There is no notion of a constituency here, perhaps due to the fact that the Netherlands is a relatively small country, but more so because (traditional) parties are organised so that local chapters are the sounding-boards for local issues which are then processed into the national party’s manifesto. I’ve even been involved in setting up a local chapter of a national party in my part of town!
There is a threshold of 1/150th of the votes cast – 150 being the number of seats in the lower house – which translates to around 70,000 votes needed to gain a seat. In a country where 10,000,000+ votes are cast, that’s a very achievable target for independents and smaller, newer parties.
The political landscape changes rapidly under any form of PR. We’ve witnessed the rise of facism here, the rise and fall of populism and also the fact that manifestoes don’t get you into government, coalition negotiations do. How much are you willing to scratch off your list of pledges in order to get into power?
I will end with a warning though: we’ve reached the stage that any party’s election manifesto isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, which leads to voter disillusion with the status quo and makes them vote en masse for woeful parties like Wilders’ nazi eejits, who WON the last election but thankfully not by enough to form a proper coalition.
Thanks
The APPG for Fair Elections that Hannah refers to is a large cross-party group of MPs, led by Labour with especially strong support from the Liberal Democrats (since last July the largest-ever parliamentary party explicitly committed to proportional representation – aka fair, equal votes) and Greens. As well as PR, this APPG is calling for capping of political donations and clamping down on disinformation/fake news (or ‘lying’ as we used to call it).
On PR, it is calling for a National Commission on Electoral Reform to be held DURING THIS PARLIAMENT paving the way. The focus is on people not parties – on addressing the destructive and widespread alienation and distrust in the entire political make-up of this country. People are savvy enough to sense the whole thing is broken – a ridiculous but revealing example is the fact that Corbyn in GE 2019 got more votes nationwide than did Starmer in GE 2024…!
I personally support STV (maximises the power, voice and choice of the voter) but ‘which system?’ needs be decided openly, transparently, engaging the public. One task of the National Commission would be to explore/consult (such as on-line consultation, supportive Citizens Assembly) publicly and recommend a system for UK General Elections.
My appeal: let’s all get behind the APPG call for a Commission – write to your MP and demand it in the interests of re-vitalising trust in our struggling democracy.
I am 68 years old, not once in my life has my vote made ANY difference and nor have I ever been able to cast my vote for a candidate who has won, not in local or national elections. I will no longer bother voting as its pointless.