There have been as many interpretations of what the outcome of the recent local elections really mean as there are days in a week. Two things however are crystal clear: the UK is now a multi-party state; under those circumstances, the current electoral system of First Past the Post (FPTP) is no longer of any use and the time has come to examine proportional representation (PR) as a replacement. Let’s examine why.
The flaws of FPTP
FPTP has long been justified for its ease of use, certainty, stability and a means of accountability. That may have been true when there were two main parties which attracted the majority of voters. Now, more people than ever before feel their vote doesn’t count.
Look at these examples. Under FPTP, the 2024 General Election gave Labour a 174-seat majority (nearly 64% of seats) on just 33.7% of the national vote, the most disproportional result in British history. 23,622 votes were needed to elect each Labour MP while the Green Party, which won 6.4% of the vote, needed 460,781 votes per MP. Anyone voting Green in a constituency (other than where a Green MP was elected) has no representation at all.
The local elections produced similar outcomes. Two wards in Lincoln (where I live) provide illustration. In one, 863 voters voted Reform UK. The other 1422 people who cast a ballot chose different parties. In another, 889 voters elected the Labour candidate out of the 2467 who voted, meaning 1568 voters chose other candidates. In each ward, the majority of voters have no-one they voted for to represent them.
What’s more, Labour retained control of the city council by a majority of one. You could say that what happens in the city in the near future was decided by just 889 people in one ward. No wonder there is disillusionment among the electorate about the merits of democracy.
FPTP has also become prone to manipulation. In 2024, tactical voting led to parties prioritising a tiny number of swing seats, where they focused manifestos and resources on a few thousand voters to persuade them to vote against candidates they disapproved of. Prominent Conservatives like Liz Truss, Grant Shapps and Penny Mordaunt lost their seats this way. Though legal, this approach makes a mockery of representative democracy.
It’s blindingly obvious therefore that FPTP is no longer fit for purpose and electoral reform has become absolutely essential. Replacing it with proportional representation (PR) is no longer just a technical preference but a democratic necessity.
New unitary authorities and the case for PR
The forthcoming local government reorganisation increases the case for voting reform. It’s designed to devolve power away from London to the regions by offering more money and more autonomy to them while increasing accountability for voters.
Let’s return to Lincolnshire. The county is an enormous area with a population of over one million. It’s currently run by a county council and seven district councils: North Kesteven, South Kesteven, South Holland, Boston, Lincoln, East Lindsey, West Lindsey. That looks and is bureaucratic but the district councils most definitely connect local politics to voters.
Under the new structure, the county becomes a unitary authority (the precise form is yet to be decided by the government). Under FPTP, the new authority might easily be dominated by one party – Reform UK, who swept to power in the 2025 council elections. But elected members will be expected to make decisions on behalf of all residents’ needs, whether they are from the farming areas in the Fens or the more industrial parts around Scunthorpe and the Humber. This will create as much of an imbalance as was seen in the 2024 General Election.
Forms of proportional representation
PR offers an opportunity to overcome such challenges. It means that the share of seats a party wins in parliament more closely matches their vote share. It offers a chance for voters to vote according to their priorities, leading to policies that benefit a wider cross section of the public. But it’s barely understood by a UK electorate used to simply putting a cross in a box, as happens with FPTP.
There are three acknowledged forms: the Single Transferable Vote (STV), AMS, the additional members system (used in the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and also the London Assembly) and the Party List system.
STV: how it works
Let’s return to Lincolnshire. It currently has an electorate of around 560,000, represented by eight MPs. Each constituency has an electorate of around 77,000 voters. Under STV, those constituencies would be larger than at present. As a unitary authority, the county would be too big as one constituency so would have to be split into smaller units.
Under PR, let’s say two areas of equal size are formed, with four MPs allocated to each area. Parties would nominate the candidates who would appear on the ballot paper. There could be more than one candidate from each party.
On polling day, voters rank the candidates in order of preference, using numbers. They can rank as many or as few candidates as they wish. The number of votes needed to elect a candidate (the quota) is then determined.
PR STV quotas: working out the results
The quota is worked out by dividing the total number of voters by the number of seats plus one seat and adding one to the result. In our Lincolnshire example, each area has 280,000 voters. Dividing this by the number of seats plus one seat is 56,000. Adding one to that total means a candidate needs a quota of 56,001 votes to be elected.
At the count, all first preference votes are counted. If a candidate exceeds 56,001 votes, they are elected and any extra votes over the quota are then transferred to the candidate with the highest second preference votes on each ballot. Once the second preference candidate reaches the quota (56,001), they are elected and their extra votes move to the candidate with the highest third preference votes and so on.
If no one meets the quota, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes transfer to the next available preference on each ballot paper. (second, third etc.).This process raises the vote counts of the remaining contenders, increasing their vote accordingly until all four seats are filled.
A large area therefore allows each voter to vote for more than one candidate, according to the issues. Most importantly, and unlike the FPTP system, all voters’ choices all have value and count. It is currently the preferred option for the Electoral Reform Society.
Two PR alternative systems
Additional Member System (AMS)
Under AMS, voters have two separate votes to elect MPs: a constituency vote and a regional vote. FPTP is used for the constituency MP and the candidate with the highest number of votes wins. For the regional MP, under AMS, voters choose a party. Again, each voter has two votes to cast.
Party List (PL)
PL is the simplest form of PR, where voters choose a party rather than a specific individual. Seats are then allocated to candidates from the party’s list based on the percentage of the vote won. Candidates will have a ranking decided by the party which voters are unaware of and cannot change.
PR as a true mirror of the nation
The current FPTP system is producing random results that no longer reflect the multi-party reality of modern Britain. It’s discouraging the development of any deeper understanding of the issues that bother voters. Moving to a proportional system would ensure that every vote has value, ending the era of safe seats and forced tactical voting.
For a democracy to be legitimate, its parliament must be a mirror of the nation, a goal that can only be achieved by replacing FPTP with proportional representation.
To find out more about PR, the following websites are useful:.
Make Votes Matter: The Case for PR
The Constitution Society: PR vs. First Past the Post
YouGov: Public Support for PR in Britain
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
