Questions about PR

Q1:

FPTP produces strong, stable governments. Isn't that better than the endless unstable coalitions that PR would give us?

It isn't just PR that produces coalition governments: two out of the last five UK general elections have resulted in coalitions.

The 2017 election gave us a "confidence and supply" arrangement between two right-wing parties (the Tories and the DUP) which between them had only scraped together 43.3 per cent of the vote. And it never supplied any confidence in Theresa May. 

Under a system where all votes counted, we would most likely have been governed by a Labour-led left-of-centre grouping. Wouldn't that have been infinitely preferable?

The 2019 election produced a majority for the Conservatives, on a vote share only slightly higher than they obtained in 2017, which lied and bungled its way through the COVID pandemic, and presided over the worst cost-of-living crisis in living memory.

• Across the world, most developed countries use PR, and most enjoy peaceful and stable government. It's true that many countries are governed by coalitions - but is anything inherently wrong with that?
• Left-of-centre coalitions and minority-led governments have been elected and have successfully implemented progressive programmes of government: recent examples include leftist coalitions elected in New Zealand (2017) and Germany (2021).
• In the UK, a Labour-led coalition in the Scottish Parliament (1999-2007) delivered a programme at least as progressive as the programme delivered by a Labour government in Westminster (1997-2010) which had a huge majority.
• Finally, let's remember that because FPTP benefits large parties, both the Labour and Conservative parties straddle an enormous section of the left/right political spectrum. Both parties can best be thought of as internal coalitions - often quite strained and unfriendly. Historically, then, many of the single-party governments that have come to power in the UK have arguably been coalitions, in all but name.

Back to top

Q2: 

Isn't voting reform a distraction from real-life issues? Would a commitment to a more proportional voting system really help us win the next election?

Voting reform isn't a distraction from bread-and-butter issues - it's absolutely crucial for addressing them. 

Labour is in power now - but realistically, the biggest challenges we face (NHS funding, social care, climate change, our relationship with the EU, the lack of opportunities for young people) will require more than a single progressive government. These problems will require long-term consensus-based solutions. 

A fair voting system could have provided this sort of long-term vision - polling figures show that under PR, the UK could have been governed by a Labour-led left-of-centre coalition for much or all of the last decade. We might not be suffering the lingering effects of Tory austerity, with homelessness at record levels and working people relying on food banks.

FPTP does not provide stable governments with long-term vision. Time and time again, progressive changes made by Labour governments have been dismantled by a Conservative government with a huge majority elected on 40% of the vote or less. FPTP now means we face a very real possibility of a far-right Reform government elected on around a third of the vote. 

A broadly proportional voting system would also do a lot to address voter disengagement: "Politics has nothing to do with me; voting doesn't make a difference; you politicians are all the same".

Many people who typically don't vote (because it doesn't change anything) did turn out to vote= in recent referendums where every vote counted; and many could be persuaded to vote for a Labour Party which pledged that the next election would be the last held under FPTP.

We're seeing a huge thirst for change, not just among political activists but also from ordinary voters who are not members of any party. After the 2015 election over half a million people signed petitions calling for PR. Most opinion polls since then have found overwhelming support for PR among the public.

We believe that a clear manifesto commitment to introduce a fair voting system would be hugely attractive to voters.

Back to top

Q3:

My priority is the socialist transformation of society. How can that happen under PR?

As Labour supporters, we are of course delighted that in 2024 Labour won a huge overall majority in Parliament. However, this was achieved on 34% of votes cast by just 60% of those eligible to vote. Although in theory our majority allows us to introduce a radical socialist programme, that has clearly not happened.

Firstly, there are ethical and practical problems in trying to implement a radical socialist programme with the support of fewer than a quarter of eligible voters. The real mandate for change comes from winning the support of well over half of all voters, most likely under a broad, left-leaning coalition.

Secondly, First Past the Post has forced the Labour Party to court Tory/Labour switch voters, which it called “Hero voters” in 2024, and largely ignore its supposed core supporters in supposedly safe seats.  This approach to winning elections inevitably drives our Party to the right, and undermines our commitment to the very people it was set up to help. This is the case across the world: research shows that countries which use non-proportional voting systems have more conservative governments than countries which use PR, even when they call themselves Social Democrats. Under PR a left-wing party can fight an election on a left-wing manifesto! Many policies which might be considered "fringe" or "hard left" in Britain, are mainstream ideas in European countries with consensus-based systems.

Third is the issue of sustainability. The progressive achievements of Labour governments have all too often been unravelled by the Tory governments which follow them. Mrs Thatcher sold off public utilities and council housing; recent Tory governments reversed Labour's achievements on child poverty and started dismantling the NHS. Under PR, right-of-centre governments are more consensus-based and find it more difficult to dismantle progressive policies. Research shows that proportional voting systems are associated with greater levels of social expenditure and more egalitarian societies.

Back to top

Q4:

Aren't PR systems rather complicated?

It's certainly true that First Past the Post is simple - the system was designed when many voters could not read or write, and what could be simpler than marking a single X in a box?

PR systems are a little more demanding - STV requires voters to rank candidates, while most AMS systems require voters to mark two ballot papers, one for a constituency MP and one at regional level. However, proportional systems are in wide use across the world (as well as in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London), and voters manage them competently. There is no reason why voters at a UK general election should struggle - it's rather patronising to suggest they might!

And, of course, there is one sense in which FPTP is incredibly complicated. FPTP forces many people to vote tactically - not for the party they like the most, but for the party they believe is most likely to defeat the party they dislike the most. This involves a good deal of prediction and guesswork. Under most PR systems, the need for tactical voting would be reduced or could disappear altogether.

Back to top

Q5:

Haven't we already had a referendum on PR, in 2011?

There was a referendum in 2011, but it certainly wasn't on PR - it was on a system known as Alternative Vote (AV).

AV works by electing a single MP in each constituency, just as under FPTP. However, rather than marking an "X" for a single candidate, voters rank their choices ("1" for their first choice, "2" for their second choice, and so on). Candidates with the fewest votes are eliminated from the count, and their votes are "recycled" (redistributed) according to second and subsequent preferences. A general election under AV would see a separate contest run in each constituency.

AV can work extremely well in some situations where people are electing a single person - it is a good system for electing a mayor or a party leader.

However, it is a poor choice for national elections. It is not proportional, and can produce an even bigger mismatch between votes and seats than we see under FPTP! It's not hard to see that the big winner under AV would be a centrist party that scored highly on second preferences, most probably the Lib Dems - under AV they could win an enormous number of seats, far larger than their share of first-preference votes.

For national elections, AV is such a flawed voting system that even many people who were committed to electoral reform did not fight very hard for it - or even vote for it - in 2011. LCER is campaigning for a system that really makes votes count - certainly not AV.

Back to top

Q6:

Wouldn't PR break the link between MPs and their constituencies?

First Past the Post provides a link between MPs and their constituencies, and many people (particularly MPs, for understandable reasons) value that link.

However, many people don't feel particularly well "represented" by their MP, or indeed any neighbouring MPs. In 2015, 57% of voters in Cornwall did not vote for the Conservatives, but every single seat in the county was taken by the Conservatives. Labour has never won a parliamentary seat in Surrey, despite gaining 95,000 votes there  at the 2024 general election, and many more than that in the past.

Some PR systems used around the world don't have a constituency link, but many do. We believe that any system which replaced FPTP for the UK would have to maintain that link. Two proportional systems which keep the constituency link are:

• The Additional Member System (AMS), used in elections for the Scottish, Welsh and London assemblies, as well as other countries (eg Germany and New Zealand). All constituencies return an MP, as they do under FPTP, but parties who get a higher proportion of votes than seats at the constituency level win additional seats for MPs who serve at a regional or sub-regional level.
• Single Transferable Vote (STV), used in elections for the Northern Ireland assembly, and for parliamentary elections in Ireland. STV is based on constituencies with between 3 and 5 MPs. The constituency link is still there, and everyone has a good chance of being represented by an MP who reflects their political views.

Which of the two systems is better? Both have worked well in the UK, and both have their supporters. A membership survey conducted by LCER found that most of our members prefer a top-up based system like AMS; however, our members also expressed a strong view that either AMS or STV would be substantially better than First Past the Post.

Back to top

Q7:

Are MPs elected under party lists as accountable as constituency MPs?

Under FPTP, local parties have the option of de-selecting a sitting MP if they feel the MP's performance is not up to scratch, although in practice this is very difficult to do.

Individual voters currently have very little opportunity to hold a sitting MP to account. They can vote against the MP at the next election, but for many people this would mean also having to vote against their preferred party. In a safe seat it is extremely rare for a sitting MP to lose, even when their behaviour has been demonstrably unacceptable.

Under more proportional systems, accountability would work differently depending on the system used.

STV is an "open-list" system, in which local parties draw up lists of candidates, and voters can choose between candidates as well as between parties, giving them a great deal of choice. Importantly, voters can reject a candidate they believe is unfit for office, without necessarily having to vote against their preferred party.

Under AMS, most MPs would be elected under a system similar to FPTP. The additional MPs could be elected via an open list (see above) or via a "closed list", where the ranking of candidates is decided by regional parties, and voters cannot vote for individual candidates in that list.
The important thing is the way the lists are drawn up. In some countries with closed list systems, such as Germany and Norway, party bosses are prevented by law from intervening in candidate selection, which must be done democratically. This should be a feature of any new AMS system introduced for the UK.

Back to top

Q8:

Won't moaning about an "unfair" voting system make us look like sore losers?

We sometimes hear the argument that Labour should not blame an unfair electoral system for election defeats, but should instead work on winning future elections. The argument goes that Labour would look like a party of sore losers if we were to attempt to change the voting system.

We make three responses to this. The first is that FPTP really is not fair, to parties or to voters.

• It can't be right that your vote makes a difference if you live in a marginal seat, but not in a safe Labour or Tory constituency.
• It can't be right that political parties devote much more time and money to campaigning in marginal seats, and formulate their manifestos to appeal to "floating" voters in marginal seats.
• It can't be right that in 2024, over 4 million people voted for Reform UK and got only 5 MPs – while just over 3.5 million Lib Dem votes won them 72 MPs. However much we dislike Reform UK and all it stands for, this cannot be right. And of course, with just a few more votes, under FPTP Reform UK could be winning many more seats and possibly forming the next government.

Our second answer is that it doesn't all have to be about unfairness. We can bring so many positive messages to the debate.

• We can talk about the possibility of a more honest, constructive and consensus-based politics.
• We can talk about voter engagement, about re-building trust, about re-energising political debate.
• We can talk about a politics where everyone is equal, where every vote counts, where everyone has the power to contribute to change.
• We can talk about a system where everyone can vote for their preferred party, knowing their vote can make a difference, no matter where they live.

And finally, with a Labour Government with a huge majority obtained by First Past the Post, it would be absurd to describe the argument for PR as the griping of a loser. That's why we're urging our Government to make the commitment to PR right now, from a position of strength.

Back to top

Q9:

Shouldn't we be persuading people who want a progressive, socialist government to vote for us (Labour), not campaigning for a system that would let them vote for another left-of-centre party?

Of course we would prefer all left-of-centre voters to vote for Labour - and at election time, we work towards persuading as many of them as possible to do so. But sometimes it's difficult to persuade Labour sympathisers to vote for us under FPTP.

• People living in constituencies where the result is a foregone conclusion may not bother voting if they know it won't make any difference.
• Many Labour supporters living in marginal seats will vote tactically, mainly to stop a Conservative candidate getting in. A proportional voting system could put a stop to this.

And we have to accept that some left-of-centre voters will vote for a party other than Labour anyway. Surely we want people to vote for Labour enthusiastically, because they agree with our vision, not because they have no other realistic choice. But if they do vote Green or Lib Dem, do we really prefer to gift a general election to the Tories or Reform UK rather than work with parties that support much of what we stand for?

At the moment, huge numbers of votes for smaller left-of-centre parties are wasted (not to mention the huge numbers of Labour votes that are wasted). Why shouldn't everyone be entitled to vote according to their preference and for their votes to count as much as anyone else's?

Back to top

Q10:

We've always had First Past the Post. Why should we change?

Here are some other things we've 'always' had - until we got rid of them. When our parliamentary system was set up following the Great Reform Act of 1832:

• Only men were allowed to vote
• Only people who owned land or property could vote
• Only those aged 21 or over could vote
• Some constituencies were "pocket boroughs", controlled by a single individual or family.
• Other constituencies were "rotten boroughs", with no voters living there at all.
• Rotten and pocket boroughs could be bought and sold

Over the past 200 years, people have fought, and some have died, to widen the franchise and to achieve fairer representation. As a result of their struggles, everything on the above list has been abolished.

Only ONE feature of Britain's original voting system remains in place. That is First Past the Post. It's time to consign FPTP to the dustbin of history, and replace it with a fair modern voting system which reflects our values of equality and democracy.

Back to top

Q11:

Doesn't PR give disproportionate power to small parties?

FPTP treats political parties very unequally. Under FPTP, the following parties usually get a larger share of seats than votes:

• Large parties in general
• The Conservative Party in particular
• Parties which are geographically based, such as the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the DUP and Sinn Fein

Other parties suffer a massive disadvantage under FPTP, getting far fewer seats than they should, given their vote share

• Small parties, particularly those based on an idea rather than on geography
• New parties
• Left-of-centre parties in general

The criticism of PR is not that small parties get more seats than they should, but that if they win those seats they may exercise undue influence by holding the balance of power in a coalition, threatening to walk out if their demands are not met.

• This can be a problem in some list-based PR systems, such as the Israeli national list system, where tiny religious parties have historically held the balance of power. The constituency-based systems proposed for the UK would not give this degree of representation to tiny parties.
• In Germany, the Free Democratic Party (FDP) held the balance of power in coalitions for many years. However, the FDP was widely seen as being unprincipled; it was punished by the electorate and has only occasionally been part of Germany's ruling coalition since the 1990s. In addition, the 5% threshold for awarding proportional seats has prevented the German government from being swamped by small parties.
• In general, coalition governments under PR perform a "grown-up" consensus-based politics where smaller parties play a role, but acknowledge their junior position.

Back to top

Q12:

Doesn't PR give power to extremists?

First Past the Post does not guarantee that extremists will be kept out of government. Donald Trump was elected under an electoral college similar to FPTP (and would not have been elected under a system in which all votes counted).

In the UK, the BNP won their first council seat in Burnley in 2009, with only 30 per cent of the vote. FPTP makes it possible for candidates who have extreme views, and who are deeply unpopular with a majority of the electorate, to win seats. With 5 parties winning substantial votes in England, and 6 in Scotland and Wales, the percentage of votes needed to get elected is frighteningly small.  Reform UK could win an overall majority in Parliament with as little as 29% of the vote.

Keeping an extreme party out of parliament does not mean that its ideas will simply disappear, or that it will have no influence. In the UK, UKIP (later the Brexit Party, later Reform) gained hardly any seats in Parliament, but had a colossal influence on the UK's political landscape, culminating in a disastrous no-deal Brexit.

The best way of taking on extremists is to defeat them by honest debate and hard work. When BNP councillors were elected in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, the Labour Party worked hard in areas that it had previously neglected as safe seats. Next time round, the BNP was beaten. Where Reform UK have won control of councils, many voters have realised that they do not offer a genuine alternative, and Reform are currently losing half the council by-elections they defend.

Finally, we should note that adopting PR isn't a failsafe insurance against right-wing governments. Hungary and Poland have both elected right-wing, illiberal governments under PR-type systems in the past. However:

• In Poland (2015), the Law and Justice party gained 61% of the seats on 38 per cent of the vote. This result arose because of a lack of proportionality in the system.
• In Hungary in 2018, Orban's Fidesz party won a large majority on just under half of the vote (its nearest rival won only 19 per cent of the vote). Under a FPTP system, Fidesz could have won almost all the seats in parliament, not just a majority.
• Opponents of voting reform sometimes point to the Nazis in Germany, who rose to power under a proportional voting system. In fact, the PR system slowed down the Nazis' rise to power. In Germany's 1932 election, the Nazis won 37% of the vote, and were the largest party in most electoral districts. This would have secured them a parliamentary majority under FPTP, but it did not give them power under PR. It was not until the following year, when the Nazis stormed the Reichstag, and suppressed and then banned opposition parties, that they became the party of government in Germany.

Back to top