The Need to Reform the UK’s Electoral System
Introduction to Electoral Systems
According to the UK Parliament website, an electoral system is “the method by which we elect
representatives”; they determine the rules on how we elect parties and candidates. [1] The aim of
such systems is essentially to translate the votes cast by the electorate into seats, as represented by
a single representative or Member of Parliament (MP). The MP elected and collective national result
according to the constitutional electoral system in place serves multiple functions and benefits to a
democratic society. The most prominent of these are representation (whether that be territorial,
functional or descriptive), a legitimate appointment of government by the mandate, a check and
balance system by holding the government to account, providing the primary point of political
participation and allowing for public influence over policy. [2] Despite being a united body under
Westminster, which retains control of ‘reserved powers’, UK parliament was devolved under the
Blair government in 1999 to distribute powers between the House of Commons, Scottish Parliament,
National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly. Subsequently, each use one of the four
different electoral systems widely used and recognised under the state. [3] As shown in Source A [4],
the main electoral system used in the UK for general elections, by-elections and local council
elections in both England and Wales is the First Past the Post system (FPTP). Although the use of the
Additional Member System (AMS) in Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Greater London
Assembly; as well as the adoption of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) by the Northern Ireland
Assembly, European Parliament elections in Northern Ireland and Scottish Council elections; and
finally the choice of Supplementary Voting (SV) for Mayoral elections and the Police and Crime
Commissioner elections in England and Wales are all of note and provide prime examples of the
alternatives available, the main focus of this argument will be against the use of the FPTP system, as
the most influential in forming our political climate. [5]
Source A [citation 4]
What is the First Past the Post System and why do we use it in General and Local Elections?
The workings of the FPTP system are relatively self-explanatory. In simple terms, the mandate is
granted one vote for their favoured candidate/MP for their constituency. This MP will represent a
political party, or occasionally they will run as an independent. Once all votes are cast, they will be
counted and the MP who receives the largest number of votes in each constituency shall be elected.
The political party the winning MP is apart of has therefore won a ‘seat’ in parliament, of which
there are 650 (one for each constituency in the UK). The party with the most seats is elected to
government, even if they win by only one seat, although they need a majority (326 seats) to govern
independently. In choosing an electoral system, criteria considered include the fairness of the result
and how representative it is of the country’s votes, providing a good choice of candidates, a
, functional link between the representative and the constituency and the outcome being a strong
government that can pass laws effectively but still be held accountable by the electorate. The issue
for legislative bodies then comes in the form of meeting these criteria with their chosen electoral
system, to the best of their ability. Unfortunately, no electoral system will be able to equally meet
these objectives, and it becomes more a task of weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of
each one.
Having said this, for a maximised democracy, one would likely argue that fairness and the result of
an election being a true representation of public opinion is the single most important factor. As
objectively the least ‘fair’ and most disproportionate voting system, FPTP has long been widely
criticised for producing a distorted image of who the mandate wants to govern overall. Granted,
some persuasive benefits of FPTF include speed and simplicity, the exclusion of smaller, extremist
parties from parliament, a strong and stable government and a strong link between MP’s and their
constituencies. [6] The strength of these advantages was illustrated in the 2011 Alternative Vote
referendum, where 67.9% voted to keep FPTP for UK general and local elections. However, it does
seem that simplicity is the overwhelming reason for FPTP’s popularity, with a turnout of only 41% in
the 2011 referendum indicating a lack of understanding on the issue and perhaps highlighting the
need to engage the public in political matters so they are able to make an informed decision. [7]
What is the issue with the First Past the Post System and its use in General and Local Elections?
As aforementioned, the main issue with the first past the post system is its lack of proportionality. It
is possible for a party to win a large volume of votes across the country but win very few or even no
seats in parliament if the votes are widely dispersed and not concentrated within constituencies. A
clear example of this would be in the 2015 general election whereby UKIP won almost 3.9 million
votes but only one seat. By extension, parties with support concentrated within constituencies are at
a large disadvantage, seen time and again through the popularity of the SNP in Scotland. In the same
election that UKIP lost out majorly to the FPTP system, the SNP won 56 out of a total 59 seats in
Scotland with 50% of the vote.
Leading on from this, FPTP makes it possible for MPs and governments to be elected on less than
50% of the vote, which is often the case and results in a country governed by a party that the
majority (over 50%) of the UK did not vote for. The legitimacy of government is further weakened by
the UK’s arguable participation crisis and low turnouts due to political apathy, with Tony Blair being
re-elected on 35.2% of the vote in 2005- the lowest recorded winning percentage.
Another major issue of FPTP is how it restricts the choices of the mandate. Our current system
promotes a two-party state, where the Conservative Party and the Labour Party are viewed as the
only real contenders in winning a general election. In response to this, voters who would otherwise
vote for a minor party that aligns more with their political outlook are aware that doing so would be
a ‘wasted vote’ and therefore engage in ‘tactical voting’. This means that the individual, due to the
result almost certainly being a Conservative or Labour win, chooses the one they favour most out of
the two to keep the other out of government. Overall, the FPTP system is forcing voters to vote in a
way that is not reflective of their true political leanings, and so many of those who vote for the
winning party (who likely may have won on less than 50% of the vote as it was) do also not
realistically want that party in government as a first choice. [8] In the 2019 General Election, YouGov
polled that 32%, almost one in three voters, opted for a tactical vote, instead of choosing their
preferred party or candidate. [9] In addition, the voter only gets one vote for one candidate, and so
there is no room for voting between candidates within the same party. This may not only sway the
vote by people voting based on the personal and political appeal of the individual as opposed to the
