Why England Needs Fairer Voting Systems
Politics in England is pretty boring, because it’s always the same few political parties. That’s because unlike most countries in Europe, we still use a ‘first-past-the-post’ voting system. This ensures that fringe (new) parties can never get a foot in the door, and stops any real change happening.
In mainland Europe, Greens for instance are often part of Cabinets in power-sharing (the same happens in Australia and New Zealand). And even ‘tiny parties’ like one Party for the Animals in The Netherlands, managed to elect a few MPs, which led to sweeping legislation in parliament.
So how do we bring in fairer voting systems? It’s very difficult, because the only people who can really make those changes, are the ones in government. And once they get a majority, they don’t want things to change!
Fairer voting systems would also encourage better quality MPs (not just ones who studied politics, worked as interns, then took over the seats when said MPs retired).
For now, register to vote (ask to opt out of the open register, so your name is not sold on). And write to your MP on issues that affect you: they work for you!
What Is The Fairest Voting System?
Electoral Reform Society recommends Single Transferable Vote as the best system (used in Ireland, which has many independent MPs).
The argument given for first-past-the-post is that it maintains strong constituency links (nonsense considering many MPs are ‘flown in’ to fight seats where they don’t live – Nigel Farage did not grow up in Clacton-on-Sea).
Unlike most PR systems, STV maintains strong constituency links, which is also good to reduce the risk of extremist MPs being elected.
It also states that the present voting system means present MPs hold onto ‘one safe seat’ often for decades, and that’s why it’s more difficult to get more independent MPs elected. Under the present system, few seats change hands, unless someone is retiring or dies.
Which Parties Support Fairer Voting?
Just like in the USA, we have two main parties forever and ever, because neither want fairer voting systems, so they can stay in power. We all know that if had some version of PR, then Lib Dems, Greens (and Reform) would gain more seats, and the big two parties don’t want that.
But now things seem to changing. Reform UK is ahead in the polls, Lib Dems and Greens have both overtaken Labour, and the Conservatives appear to be finished. For the first time in (perhaps ever!) we are now a multi-party system).
Both the previous Conservative and Labour governments of recent years have won landslide victories, despite most people not having voted for them. And the same would happen if Reform UK won the projected 381 seats at the next election (with over 60% of people not wanting them to be the government).
All the smaller parties unsurprisingly support PR, as they never get the seats they should, due to the antiquated voting system. Andy Burnham (the mayor of Manchester) is one of the Labour top dogs who says we need to replace our voting system with PR, because keeping it has led the Tories to rule over England for most of the last century, despite not winning the most votes.
Yet Sir Keir Starmer has said changing the voting system is not a priority for him. It likely won’t be, as he is almost certain to be booted out, before the end of his term as Prime Minister. How a government could make such a fudge-up of a massive majority in such a short time, is anyone’s guess.
How First Past the Post can distort
FPTP is easy to explain. England is split into constituencies, each elects one MP, and the candidate with the most votes wins. That’s it. No run-offs, no ranking, no second round.
The snag is that national results depend on hundreds of separate contests. A party can pile up huge majorities in some seats and still get no extra MPs for it. Another party can win lots of seats by small margins. As a result, the share of seats in Parliament can drift far from the share of votes.
Here’s a simple made-up example with three parties across ten seats:
- Party A wins six seats with 41% in each seat
- Party B wins four seats with 40% in each seat
- Party C gets 19% everywhere and wins nothing
Across the whole area, Party C gets almost a fifth of the vote, but ends up with zero MPs. Meanwhile, Party A gets a clear majority of seats without a clear majority of votes. That’s not a “mistake”, it’s how the rules work.
FPTP rewards where votes are, not just how many votes a party gets.
Winning power without winning most votes
FPTP often gives a winner’s bonus. If a party comes first in enough constituencies, it can form a government even if most voters chose someone else.
That matters because UK governments can make big changes quickly. A party with a strong Commons majority can pass major laws, reshape public spending, and change long-term plans. Under FPTP, those decisions can rest on a narrow base of support.
Picture a national vote where Party A gets 38%, Party B gets 34%, Party C gets 16%, and others share the rest. If Party A’s support is spread in the right places, it might win well over half the seats. Meanwhile, 62% of voters preferred other parties. Even if you accept that someone must govern, that gap can feel hard to justify.
It also raises the temperature. Parties know that small shifts in a handful of seats can flip power. So campaigns focus on a limited set of “target” constituencies. Voters elsewhere get less attention, even though their lives and taxes matter just as much.
What fairer voting systems do differently
The main idea people discuss is proportional representation (PR). In plain terms, PR tries to make seats match votes more closely. If a party wins about 30% of the vote, it should win roughly 30% of seats, rather than being over-rewarded or shut out.
England already sees other voting systems nearby. Scotland and Wales use a mixed system for their parliaments. Northern Ireland uses a ranked-choice system for Assembly elections.
London uses different systems too, depending on the election. So this isn’t a wild thought experiment, it’s a choice about what fits Westminster best.
Proportional representation in plain English
Additional Member System (AMS) mixes two types of MPs. Some are elected in local constituencies (like now). Others are added from party lists to correct the overall result. Scotland and Wales use versions of this, so many voters already understand the basics.
Single Transferable Vote (STV) uses larger multi-member areas. Instead of one X, voters rank candidates. Seats go to candidates who reach a quota, and votes can transfer based on preferences. This keeps a local link, but it changes what a constituency looks like.
Party list systems elect MPs from lists in a region. With a closed list, the party decides the order. With an open list, voters can influence which candidates get in. Lists can be simple to count, but some people dislike the weaker tie to a single local MP.
A realistic path to reform
Voting reform in England won’t happen by accident. It needs political will, sustained public interest, and a clear plan that feels trustworthy. People also need to see how a new system would work, not just hear slogans.
In practice, change tends to come through manifesto commitments, followed by legislation in Parliament. Public consultation can help, because it forces a plain-English explanation of options. Some reforms also need cross-party support, because changing election rules can look self-serving if it’s pushed by one side.
