Readers have their say on reforming Britain’s electoral system – from PR to compulsory voting

You emphasised the need for comprehensive electoral reform, but couldn’t agree on what form that should take

Sir Ed Davey previously said he does not ‘share any values’ with Nigel Farage (BBC/PA) (PA Media)

The fallout of last week’s general election has led to renewed calls for electoral reform – from both sides of the political spectrum.

The Liberal Democrats have long advocated for proportional representation, arguing it would make “seats won match votes cast” and facilitate “politicians having to work together”.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage is also calling for change, as his party’s dispersed voter base meant that 14% of the national vote share only translated into five seats. Meanwhile, the Lib Dems’ 72 seats were won with just 12% of the vote.

When we asked for views, Independent readers emphasised the need for comprehensive electoral reform, but couldn’t agree on what form that should take.

Several options were floated, including multiple forms of proportional representation, compulsory voting, and better political education.

While some insisted that first-past-the-post (FPTP) is democratic as it provides clear choices and stable governance, critics asserted that FPTP disenfranchises large portions of the electorate and often results in governments elected by a minority of voters.

Here’s what you had to say:

Primary choice matters most

If there are a lot of different party candidates (as there were in the recent UK General Election) the winner will achieve victory from a smaller number of votes specifically for them than would be the case where only two or three different parties put up candidates to be elected. There is nothing undemocratic about having many different candidates. Nor is the current Labour win in any way undemocratic. The fact is that First Past the Post is very democratic precisely because it is so clear for whom each elector is voting.

To arrange a few candidates in order of preference is neither especially wise nor in any serious way more democratic. It may seem to be a fair way of deciding. But in reality a system of voting that asks electors simply to choose one candidate is MORE democratic (not less) than any other system, because it reflects voter choice perfectly. The primary choice of voters is what matters most!

Swayne

‘We vote for parties’

It is clearly madness that any chamber of parliament can be filled with members of a party that two-thirds of the electorate voted against. That, whatever the technicalities and traditions that produce it, is an outrage frankly and it morally diminishes any claim that said chamber is "democratically elected".

As for PR, some variant (possibly a bespoke one yet to be devised?) must surely be the morally right solution. For me, the argument against some forms of PR that are 'party-driven' rather than 'named-candidate' misses a crucial reality: we vote for parties! In hundreds of constituencies, you could put a certain rosette on a donkey and they'd still get in. So letting voters pick a party and those parties divvy up the jobs between their lists doesn't offend my understanding of democracy. If your area gets an individual MP who is rubbish at constituent business, you should be able to raise a petition for another, albeit from the same party.

RadicalCentrist

‘Dictatorial powers’

It cannot be doubted the current UK FPTP system disenfranchises a large part of the electorate. If you are remotely politically aware you can be sure your vote will add up to nothing, and nothing will ever change. The recent 60% turnout is nothing short of pathetic. There are many kinds of better and more representational voting systems. In the UK you do not have to look further than the Welsh and Scottish elections to the Senedd or Holyrood.

But the UK democratic problems do not stop at the botched FPTP system. You never had the courage to demand a strong written constitution, and powers to uphold it. So, whoever snatches a Parliament majority with a minority vote hold almost dictatorial powers, and can change the societal contract on a whim, and often do it without any checks and balances, just for profit to themselves and their cronies.

old dane

‘We can’t claim to be a democracy’

Of course any of the various forms of PR would produce a fairer, more democratic result. We can't actually claim to be a democracy at all if a majority of the votes go to parties that do not form part of the government.

I have supported PR ever since Mrs Thatcher won an election with less than a majority of those voting, though the problem is far older than that. It's high time we had governments made up of various parties that are required to work together collaboratively, rather than the usual yah-boo politics that leaves many to despair of politicians.

RichardHankins

PR just the first step

Many have been calling for electoral reform including a form of PR way before Farage. Why does the media give him the platform? But, the motivation for PR is to be fair to voters, to make every vote count, not to favour any particular party.

If approx. 14% of voters voted for Reform UK they should be represented in the same way that the nearly 7% who voted Green should be - whether or not you personally agree with their politics. Far better to debate and discuss issues within parliament than have extreme views pull parties to the extremes - usually rightwards. But a move to a proportional electoral system is only the first step - we also need a change in culture from confrontation to debate, co-operation, consensus / compromise - not 100% power to one party that thinks it has all the answers. So bring on coalitions. But we also need far more deliberative democracy to involve the electorate in decision making, coupled with proper political education...and so much more!

TTTern

‘There is no perfect electoral system’

We have to be very careful about changing the rules. There is no perfect electoral system, FPTP and PR both have benefits and downsides and I won’t even mention presidential elections.

I am a fan of the principle of the House of Lords but it does need word to maintain its independence, mainly by restricting the number of people elevated to the house. My instinct would be to limit the number of people in the upper house and PM’s are only allowed to elevate someone to a vacancy. The great strength of the upper house is that it is not elected and has no direct power, what it does have is experience and influence on the lower house without the participants’ need to consider being re-elected, they can vote on their own personal views.

The other major problem with electing the upper house is that if you do that then you will have to give them power, which would have to come from the lower house devaluing their ability to govern the country. (Look at other countries that have two elected houses like the US where it is very difficult to get anything through and the political make-up swings almost on an annual basis )

I am in favour of the FPTP system because we decide who represents us in the house, not the head office of political parties deciding who they will be. Additionally we end up with parties that are strong enough to run the country. If we go for PR what we will end up with is coalition governments and that will just strangle progress and parties doing deals behind closed doors (I refer you to the current situation in France) to get a government. PR would also see the end of independents and I would like to see more independents standing.

MaccaVIII

‘FPTP is necessary for asserting control over the fringes of society’

FPTP is necessary for asserting control over the fringes of society. The stability of the state must come first and foremost to the emotional outbursts of the masses. The stable hierarchy must be preserved to ensure prosperity.

tl;dr Kier in, Corbyn and his loonies out

TipYourLandlord

‘PR does not absolve voters from their responsibility’

Proponents of FPTP usually state that it delivers a more stable government and then point to the unstable governments of the pure proportional systems produced in countries like Italy. Given the events of the last seven years, that hardly applies anymore. Countries with mixed member proportional systems (half elected by FPTP electorates and half from party lists to balance out the seats) such as Germany, Scotland and New Zealand, actually do deliver very stable governments with the coalition fetter on some of the more extreme policies of the major parties.

NZ managed to bring about a change from FPTP to MMP by first having a Royal Commission in the mid-80s which recommended it be put to the vote, followed by two referendums in the early 1990s and the first MMP election in 1996. A further referendum confirmed the move to MMP was to stay in 2012. It can be done and should be done.

But please note that PR does not absolve voters from their responsibility, in fact it increases the responsibility of the voter to assess their choices appropriately, NZ and I believe Germany, do not have the outrageously biased press that we have in the UK (that is not to say some cloaked bias does not exist) so the UK needs to sort out the media, particularly the Daily Fail and GB News. I would say the UK needs several Royal Commissions, one on the holding of the Brexit Referendum (which was nothing short of a disgrace), One on the voting system, One on the bias within media and freedom of the press, plus several others for good measure.

Kiwi

‘Clearly broken’

Any system that allows a party to take two-thirds of seats with just one-third of votes is clearly broken and should be replaced as soon as possible. Starmer should establish a modern, streamlined version of a Royal Commission (incorporating citizens’ assemblies and online public consultation) to establish which form of PR best meets the needs and expectations of modern voters.

That Commission should report back in time for its recommendations to be implemented in 2028, the centenary of democracy's last great upgrade in 1928, when women finally got the vote. Not only would that ensure that the people of this country finally had proper representation in Parliament, it would give Starmer a place in history and ensure there was no prospect of the far-right sweeping into power in 2029 on one-third of the vote.

MarkKieranUK

‘Chaos’

First-past-the-post has never produced a single-party government with a voter majority in my lifetime of 70 years. In recent decades it has failed to produce the fabled 'strong' government, instead we have had chaos.

But some proportional systems transfer choice from the voter to the party. So if we are to change our voting system we need to ensure that a new system moves the power of choice towards the voter.

In our current system the parties choose the candidate the electorate is allowed to vote for. A Single Transferable Vote in Multi Member constituencies can allow voters to choose between candidates from the same party and is more likely to reflect the party shares of the vote than FPTP.

While not strictly proportional this would be a significant improvement.

PeteP

‘Hardly surprising that so many voters are disillusioned’

I am very pleased to see the back of the last government, but any voting system which allows a party to achieve an overwhelming majority on the basis of 33.7% of the popular vote cannot be considered truly democratic. That proportional representation would allow entry of what some may see as unsavoury parties is not an argument for depriving two-thirds of the electorate of a say.

It is hardly surprising that so many voters are disillusioned. With its present majority, this Labour Government could actually go down in history as the one which deepened democracy in this country.

Bubbler

‘Bold and dramatic action’

Labour needs to make a bold and dramatic action to secure a second term. PR, already proven to work in the regions and previously for the mayoral elections, would be just that kind of immediate and bold change.

Benefits: It will increase legitimacy and trust in politics, show that Labour can be fair and representative, even when it has a majority under first-past-the-post, costs next to nothing to implement, doesn't require a referendum (the Tories proved that when they changed the rules for mayoral elections overnight) and furthermore it will go down in history as one of the great political achievements of the 21st century.

On the other hand, if Labour don't deliver this, then expect it to be a Brexit-level plank of Reform UK’s future campaigning and framed by them as a war on the Westminster elite.

My advice: the time is NOW. There has never been so much public thirst for electoral reform.

robinlayfield

‘FPTP is inherently elitist’

I agree with what Ed Davey said at the weekend. Democracy is about the fair representation of votes. That includes electing people who you disagree with. Ironically for once, the Lib Dems have 72 seats which is very close to the number they would have got under PR.

FPTP is inherently elitist. No party in my lifetime has got 50% or more of the popular vote. This time 34% of the vote elected 69% of the seats, and 43% elected 56% of teh seats in 2019.

You either believe in representative democracy or you do not. Personally, I believe in it.

49niner

‘It’s time for change’

If the number of seats parties won reflected the share of the vote, the 2024 result would be roughly 219 Labour, 154 Tory, 93 Reform, 79 LibDem and 44 Green. Having a parliament that reflects how people vote would likely encourage more people to take part (though it should be compulsory) and would mean votes for smaller parties were not 'wasted' as they are now.

With proper PR (not the alternative vote system rejected in the dodgy 2011 referendum) tactical voting is reduced. FPTP is a stitch-up that has allowed Tories and Labour to share power for a century, usually governing more people who didn't vote for them than did. It's time for change, but it might not be a change Starmer would want as he's a beneficiary of the status quo.

Bazerby

‘Permanent coalition’

It's always the same cry from the right when an election doesn't go their way, the system is broken. They didn't think it worth changing in 14 years of Tory dominance but now it has advantaged labour, it's in need of reform. Truth is, few English voters would accept the PR system. The outcry at having to bring photographic ID to prove your right to vote should highlight the strange relationship the English have with electoral reform. Photo ID has been mandatory in all Northern Ireland elections for over 30 years and PR in the form of STV is the main form of voting in all their elections with the exception of a GE.

Of course, the system should be reformed but it is likely to lead to permanent coalition government in the UK and their citizens won't want that.

In my view, it would lead to better government, and fairer and more accountable legislation. Under STV, Reform on 14% may have picked up more seats if the transfers went their way but equally, the Labour and Lib Dem transfers might just as likely kept them out.

The right might just regret it if they get their wish.

Hypernormalisation

‘Something better, not just different’

Yes, we need a revised voting system. Something better, not just different.

The Scottish Parliament has PR. (proportional representation, which the Tory party fiercely rejects but is happy to take seats in Holyrood?)

What we need in the UK is separate elections for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Unicorn

‘Incredibly undemocratic’

We do need something different to what we have now. FPTP is the worst system.

Whether it's AV, PR, STV, MMP or any number of other acronyms.

FPTP is literally the worst one of them all in terms of getting a government that the majority of the country can get behind.

I am happy that Labour are in, but 34% votes, 63% of seats and 100% power to implement their manifesto based on the backing of a third of the country, just seems incredibly undemocratic and wrong to me.

No wonder 40% of the country didn't bother voting when there is such little choice (in terms of where casting your vote could influence the make up of Parliament).

Someone182

A package of reform

Changing the FPTP voting system could be done within a package of constitutional reform. That would need to include scrapping Lords and replacing with an elected second chamber, increasing devolution and considering alternative PR approaches.

Just transplanting PR onto what we have now could give us something even worse. Maybe we even need to look at the role of our head of state.

Thinkingallowed

‘Compulsory voting’

Compulsory voting would be a start. However something does need to change, Reform getting more votes than the Lib Dems but only a fraction of the seats does seem unjustifiable. (Deffo not a Reform voter myself tho!)

Godricson82

Make voting a legal responsibility

The FPTP is one of the worst methods of electing representatives. At its most extreme, it can come down to a form not unlike "best of three". And when it's been well established, as it is in many countries, there will be little or no enthusiasm for the party in power to change it.

As for the other methods of electing a government, they can be, or at least, tend to be more truly representative - e.g. proportional representation, single transferable vote. But none are ideal as they often result in the need to form alliances, which can prove to be unstable or shortlived, and often obstructive to efficient governance.

So, yes, our FPTP method needs replacing, but doing so will be all but impossible.

One thing that can be done, and which would make even FPTP more representative, is to make it a legal responsibility to cast one's vote, even if the vote is for "none of the above".

DesPear

Two caveats for PR

PR with two caveats:

1) A minimum threshold of the public vote to participate in parliamentary discussion. This stops time being wasted by tiny vote-holding parties.

2) A higher threshold of the public vote to participate in parliamentary voting. This stops parties with a relatively low vote percentage from having an undue influence through vote selling.

Get the numbers on those right and that should solve most of the issues PR can have.

Aimeryan

‘PR won’t work’

I do not think proportional representation in any form will work. If a minority government needs votes to pass new legislation like tax reform, they may need a party with very few MP's to vote with them. They would then want concessions in order to agree to vote with the government meaning a small number of MP's from a party very few people voted for would have a greater influence over parliament than other parties with greater representation.

Also, because Labour were predicted to have a large majority and the Tories have become unelectable, people knew they could use Reform as a protest vote. If they thought Reform would have significant influence in parliament, they would not vote for them. We saw this in France.

Lastly, all parties need to understand the low turnout and find a way to get more people to the polls.

Spenced

‘Scrap the Lords’

Parliamentary systems do not work well with proportional representation. You end up with governments beholden to minority parties, and these are often extremists. Look no further than the Knesset to see how screwed up that can get. Preferential voting works well, since it allows for a protest vote without wasting a vote. Although, unlike here in Australia, the preferencing should be optional.

And scrap the House of Lords. That nonsense doesn't belong in a modern democracy.

Wordee

‘Not fit for purpose’

The biggest problem in the UK is the ignorance of the public as to how other systems work and really how undemocratic we are.

We have been brainwashed with 'mother of parliaments etc. etc.'

In fact the UK 'democratic' system is not fit for purpose in the 21st century.

The upper house is anything but democratic, religion should be kept out, the lower house is not much better.

A written constitution is a must and here we should study that of Germany which was written as the result of national political disaster.

There will be no levelling up until we adopt a federal system, again as in Germany.

We must rid ourselves of feudal practices of 'honours', these only encourage a class-ridden society.

If we retain the monarchy, this must be transparent i.e. no more keeping their finances and just where they keep their money and invest, secret.

By the way, I'm a liberal!

Pateleylad

Some of the comments have been edited for this article. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article.

All you have to do is sign up, submit your question and register your details - then you can then take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.

Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.