Opinion: Britain Needs Electoral Reform — First Past the Post Is Broken

On 5 July 2024, Labour won a landslide victory, securing 412 seats and a 174-seat majority in the House of Commons. It was hailed as a mandate for change, a decisive rejection of 14 years of Conservative rule, and a new chapter for Britain. There is just one problem: only 33.7% of voters actually voted Labour. Two-thirds of the electorate voted for someone else, yet Labour controls 63% of the seats and can pass any law it wants without needing to listen to anyone.

This is not democracy. This is a rigged system that rewards the largest party far beyond its actual support, punishes smaller parties with dispersed votes, and leaves millions of voters feeling unrepresented. It is time to admit that first past the post is broken, and that Britain needs proportional representation.

The 2024 Election: A Case Study in Dysfunction

The 2024 general election produced results that would be laughable if they were not so serious:

• Labour: 33.7% of votes → 63% of seats (412 seats)
• Conservatives: 23.7% of votes → 19% of seats (121 seats)
• Liberal Democrats: 12.2% of votes → 11% of seats (72 seats)
• Reform UK: 14.3% of votes → 0.8% of seats (5 seats)
• Greens: 6.8% of votes → 0.6% of seats (4 seats)

Reform UK won 14.3% of the vote — more than the Lib Dems — but only 5 seats, because their votes were spread across the country rather than concentrated in specific constituencies. The Greens won 6.8% of the vote but only 4 seats. Between them, Reform and the Greens won 21.1% of the vote but only 1.4% of the seats. That is 5.4 million voters whose votes were effectively discarded.

Meanwhile, Labour won a huge majority on a vote share lower than Jeremy Corbyn's in 2017 (40%). The system rewarded Labour not because voters loved them, but because the Conservative vote collapsed and was split between the Tories, Reform, and the Lib Dems.

This is not an anomaly. It is how first past the post works. And it is indefensible.

The Case Against First Past the Post

1. It produces disproportionate results

FPTP does not reflect how people vote. A party can win a majority of seats with a minority of votes, as Labour did in 2024 (and in 2005, when they won 55% of seats on 35.2% of the vote). A party can win more votes than another and still lose, as happened in 1951 (Labour won more votes but the Conservatives won more seats) and February 1974 (the Conservatives won more votes but Labour won more seats).

The system is a lottery, where the outcome depends not on how many people support you, but on where your voters live.

2. It wastes millions of votes

In 2024, 22 million votes — nearly half of all votes cast — were for losing candidates and had no effect on the composition of Parliament. If you vote for anyone other than the winner in your constituency, your vote is wasted.

This is particularly true in safe seats, where one party has such a strong lead that the result is never in doubt. In these seats (which make up over 90% of constituencies), opposition voters know their vote will not change the outcome, which depresses turnout and reduces accountability.

3. It forces tactical voting

Because only the winner matters, voters in marginal seats often vote not for their preferred candidate but for the least-bad option with a chance of winning. This distorts the true level of support for parties and policies, and it means voters are not expressing their genuine preferences.

4. It entrenches inequality

FPTP rewards parties whose votes are concentrated in specific regions, and punishes parties whose support is spread evenly. This creates a system where the SNP (3.9% of the vote, 48 seats in 2019) wins far more seats than the Greens (2.7% of the vote, 1 seat) or the Lib Dems (11.6% of the vote, 11 seats).

It also means that parties focus their campaigns on a small number of swing seats, effectively ignoring the rest of the country. If you live in a safe seat, your vote does not matter, and the parties know it.

5. It produces 'elective dictatorships'

A party with a large majority can pass any law it wants, even if most voters did not vote for it. Labour's 174-seat majority gives it total control of Parliament, despite winning only a third of the vote. This is what Lord Hailsham called an "elective dictatorship" — a government with near-absolute power, constrained only by the next election.

The Case for Proportional Representation

Proportional representation (PR) is a voting system where parties win seats in proportion to their share of the vote. If a party wins 20% of votes, it gets 20% of seats. There are many types of PR (party list, STV, AMS), but all are more proportional than FPTP.

1. Every vote counts

Under PR, every vote contributes to the final result. There are no wasted votes, no safe seats, and no need for tactical voting. Voters can vote for the party they actually support, not the least-bad option.

2. More representative parliaments

PR produces parliaments that reflect how people voted. In the 2024 election, a PR system would have given Reform UK around 93 seats (not 5), the Greens around 44 seats (not 4), and Labour around 219 seats (not 412). No party would have had a majority, and the government would have had to negotiate and compromise.

3. Forces cooperation

PR makes single-party majority government rare, so parties must form coalitions or work together to pass legislation. This forces consensus and moderation, and it prevents any one party from imposing its will on the country.

Critics say this leads to weak government and endless negotiations. But most European democracies use PR (Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand), and they are not paralysed. They are stable, prosperous, and more democratic than the UK.

4. Reduces polarisation

FPTP encourages parties to move to the extremes to energise their base, because they only need to win a plurality in each seat. PR encourages parties to appeal to a broader range of voters, because every vote counts. This reduces polarisation and makes politics more civil.

The Objections

"PR gives extremists a platform"

This is the most common objection, and it has some truth. Under PR, a party with 5% of the vote would win around 30 seats, giving them a platform in Parliament. But most European democracies use PR and have not been overrun by extremists. Germany has a 5% threshold to prevent tiny parties from entering parliament, and it works.

Moreover, FPTP does not keep extremists out — it just keeps them out of Parliament. Reform UK won 14.3% of the vote in 2024, and their voters are not going away. Under PR, they would have seats, but they would also be forced to moderate their views to form coalitions. Under FPTP, they are shut out, which radicalises them further.

"PR leads to weak coalition governments"

Coalition governments are not inherently weak. Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand all have coalition governments, and they are stable and effective. The 2010–2015 Conservative-Lib Dem coalition in the UK was unpopular, but that was because the Lib Dems broke their promises, not because coalitions are inherently bad.

Moreover, single-party majority governments are not inherently strong. Theresa May's government (2017–2019) was paralysed by Brexit, despite having a majority (until she lost it). Boris Johnson's government (2019–2022) was chaotic and scandal-ridden, despite having an 80-seat majority.

"Voters rejected reform in 2011"

In 2011, the UK held a referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV), a modest reform that would have allowed voters to rank candidates in order of preference. AV is not proportional representation — it is a preferential voting system that still produces disproportionate results.

The referendum was rejected by 68% of voters, but this does not mean voters oppose PR. The campaign was poorly run, the Lib Dems (who championed AV) were deeply unpopular, and AV was not the reform that most reformers wanted. A referendum on full PR might produce a different result.

Why Reform Will Not Happen

The case for electoral reform is overwhelming. FPTP is indefensible, and PR would make Britain more democratic, more representative, and more fair. So why has reform not happened?

Because Labour and the Conservatives benefit from FPTP. Both parties have won large majorities on minority vote shares, and both know that PR would make it much harder for them to govern alone. They have no incentive to change a system that works in their favour.

Labour flirted with electoral reform under Tony Blair, but dropped it once they won a landslide in 1997. Keir Starmer has ruled out electoral reform, despite pressure from the Lib Dems and the Greens. The Conservatives are even more opposed, because PR would likely keep them out of power for a generation.

The only way reform will happen is if a future government is forced into a coalition with the Lib Dems or Greens, and electoral reform is the price of their support. But even then, it would require a referendum, and referendums on constitutional change are risky and unpredictable.

The Bottom Line

First past the post is broken. It produces disproportionate results, wastes millions of votes, forces tactical voting, and entrenches inequality. Labour won 63% of seats on 33.7% of the vote in 2024, while Reform UK won 14.3% of votes but only 0.8% of seats. Proportional representation would make every vote count, produce more representative parliaments, and force parties to cooperate. Critics argue PR leads to weak coalition governments and gives extremists a platform, but most European democracies use PR successfully. The case for reform is overwhelming, but Labour and the Conservatives benefit from FPTP and have no incentive to change it. Until voters demand reform loudly enough to force politicians to act, Britain will remain stuck with a voting system that is undemocratic, unfair, and indefensible. It is time to admit that first past the post is not fit for purpose, and to demand something better.