By Mabel Wellman.
Recently, I’ve been seeing an increasing number of articles in newspapers about proportional representation.
The main content of such articles will sound very familiar to people who have either campaigned against First Past The Post (FPTP) voting before; considered “strategically voting” to make sure their vote can make a difference, or really anyone who has closely followed local or the national elections before – which is that it takes a very small number of total votes, in the right places, for any political party to make massive gains in the House of Commons. With the inverse of this of course also being true, that a ruling party can do extremely poorly in elections, but manage to stay in power from being popular in the right places.
For example, writing in The Guardian, Will Hayward talks of our country’s FPTP system in the context of a recent YouGov MPR Poll, which predicts Reform could win 42% of seats in the next general election, with only 26% of the vote.
This is because of how First Past The Post works (or doesn’t work, if you prefer) – votes in a nationwide general election are cast and counted for each constituency – electing a local MP, meaning political parties very often win very small percentages of total votes across the UK, but are rewarded far larger numbers of MPs in the Houses of Commons (or “seats”) because their voters were in the right places. This means that there are many areas across the UK where certain parties are very safe to not even bother campaigning, and likewise other areas become battlegrounds where every single vote matters in national politics.
In the 2024 election, Labour received 33.7% of votes in the UK, and won 63.2% of all seats. Conversely, Reform UK received 14.3% of total votes, however only won 0.8% of the 650 seats.
This often means voters may feel they’re unable to cast their vote for their preferred candidate. Instead, many seek guidance on how to vote “strategically” if they want their current representative ousted, or to try and prevent another party from taking hold in their area. Many people feel misrepresented as they feel they can’t vote for who they truly want to represent them, and often don’t even bother voting.
An alternative is Proportional Representation (PR), which is actually several different voting systems that exist, but in articles such as Hayward’s, it is written about in a way that worries me.
Rather than focusing on how much fairer different forms of PR voting can be compared to FPTP, the article (like many others) focuses on Reform UK. How well they may or may not do in an election years from now, and why Kier Starmer should change the system (which Hayward does point out disproportionately favoured his party last year) to stop Nigel Farage possibly getting 42% of MP seats with just 26% of the total votes.
This take on Proportional Representation and potential changes to our voting system does absolutely nothing to help make elections fairer in the UK. Not just because any party which has done well at the previous election has succeeded from a FPTP system the way it is, but also because when it is worded to keep one party out, large numbers of people may then be against a fairer system of voting which would benefit them too.
To present PR as a way to serve one group of people, or one political party, is inherently flawed because the whole point of PR is for politics to properly serve everyone. The current voting system that award the MPs their seats will not exist if and when PR is finally embraced and rolled out, so MPs need to be encouraged to support a system that may well put their career into jeopardy for the betterment of the nation.
We should talk about the positives of this change for our society. According to the Electoral Reform Society, almost as many people didn’t vote in the 2024 general election, as those who did vote (28.8 million voted, compared to 27.5 million not voting). This is a horrifying statistic, but it’s not one that’s hard to imagine in our country.
It is very hard to get excited about politics right now. After over a decade of austerity; prices for electric and other essential services and food ballooning; and many feeling none of the main parties represent them – people are struggling to find the motivation to survive, let alone feel inspired to vote for the change we so desperately need. And you then might not even be able to vote for who you want to, to avoid wasting your vote and not voting strategically!
A Proportional Representation style voting system will allow people to vote for the change they directly want to see. This means that many tiny political parties, including a mosaic of single issue parties or independent candidates, will finally have a chance of being represented in UK politics, rather than the same tired status quo repeating itself again and again.
Imagine in the future, under a PR voting system, how much more accessible politics would be for the average person. Groups of local people (say pub patrons, or classmates interested in politics) could come together to draft their ideas, build a campaign with local support, and thanks to a fairer voting style, theoretically then stand a chance of becoming first councillors, and then MPs to represent their community. Born and bred in their area to make the change needed.
Talk about the good Proportional Representation will bring, not the desperation to keep out one political party (which could easily become the argument to keep another one out the next election cycle).
That’s how we can get people motivated, in not just politics, but their local communities – because with Proportional Representation, their voice will matter!
- In Common is not for profit. We rely on donations from readers to keep the site running. Could you help to support us for as little as 25p a week? Please help us to carry on offering independent grass roots media. Visit: https://www.patreon.com/incommonsoton