Overhauling the voting system - Proportional representation etc

[Uncle Buck]

mods note - split from this thread

They should retain the current system of constituencies, but with the caveat that you can only be elected if you have a majority of the vote.

If no candidate has a majority of the vote, the two highest-placed candidates proceed to a runoff. This is the French system. It would stop absurdities like people entering Parliament with 27% of the vote in their constituency- how is that justifiable?- or governments being formed with a third of the vote- ditto.

We are told FPTP ensures stable government- surely the last decade has taught us that that is nonsense?

 

[Bletchleyite]

They should retain the current system of constituencies, but with the caveat that you can only be elected if you have a majority of the vote.

If no candidate has a majority of the vote, the two highest-placed candidates proceed to a runoff. This is the French system. It would stop absurdities like people entering Parliament with 27% of the vote in their constituency- how is that justifiable?- or governments being formed with a third of the vote- ditto.

We are told FPTP ensures stable government- surely the last decade has taught us that that is nonsense?

The Alternative Vote system does this. You rank candidates by preference, and there are multiple rounds in the count. Each time the lowest is eliminated, and the votes are redistributed. It isn't PR, but it gets rid of "wasted votes" and tactical voting. There was a referendum on it a while back which failed, but that was probably because people didn't understand it properly.

With multiple parties on each side it's probably better than the present system. Many will want to say something like "I'd rather Reform but if not I'll accept the Tories" or "I'd rather the Lib Dems but if not I'll accept Labour", and it allows for that rather than the votes for the minority party being in effect lost.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If no candidate has a majority of the vote, the two highest-placed candidates proceed to a runoff. This is the French system. It would stop absurdities like people entering Parliament with 27% of the vote in their constituency- how is that justifiable?- or governments being formed with a third of the vote- ditto.

Absolutely. This is pretty much what was proposed back in 2011 when people voted against it because Nick Clegg.

It makes perfect sense. Look at the Runcorn by-election, where Reform won by six votes from Labour but 2,300 people had voted Conservative and 2,300 people had voted Green; 128 people even voted Monster Raving Loony. Those second preferences would have been interesting.

 

[Snow1964]

They should retain the current system of constituencies, but with the caveat that you can only be elected if you have a majority of the vote.

If no candidate has a majority of the vote, the two highest-placed candidates proceed to a runoff. This is the French system. It would stop absurdities like people entering Parliament with 27% of the vote in their constituency- how is that justifiable?- or governments being formed with a third of the vote- ditto.

We are told FPTP ensures stable government- surely the last decade has taught us that that is nonsense?

Don't even need to have run offs, some countries systems have initial constituency or area basis, get over 50% and straight in regardless of number of votes.

They then sweep the remainder (those without one person reaching 50%) with a proportional or alternative vote.

Sort of covers both the constituency local argument, and doesn't penalise groups getting hundreds of thousands of votes, but scattered across whole country, and is fairer where 3 or more are getting decent vote share.

No system is perfect, in the 2017 General election Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) failed to get in with 28,543 votes, but some others got lot less than half that number of votes, but still got elected. FPTP at its worst.

 

[ainsworth74]

25% when your opponents are polling 10-15% each will still deliver a giant win.

Such is life under FPTP which now that a bunch of parties may stand to benefit from they all suddenly want to enter a Faustian Pact where they all tolerate FPTP on the hope that they'll be the one to get the lucky 25% that lands them a majority and screw the gargantuan democratic deficit that will instantly engender and the chaos that will result.

I am a subscriber to the Housing Costs theory of everything for why so much is broken in the UK but I am also a subscriber to the "our electoral system is utterly broken" theory of why so much is broken in the UK.

 

[edwin_m]

A more proportional voting system might also engender a more positive attitude about politics.

People are more able to vote for what they want most, with the possibility of only getting some of what they want, whereas at the moment many just vote against who they want least. And after the election the parties themselves would have to work together on what they had in common, to form a coalition.

 

[styles]

A more proportional voting system might also engender a more positive attitude about politics.

People are more able to vote for what they want most, with the possibility of only getting some of what they want, whereas at the moment many just vote against who they want least. And after the election the parties themselves would have to work together on what they had in common, to form a coalition.

I suspect it would also prevent parties trying to fight to attract all voters. Labour and the Conservatives have both jostled for center ground, whereas Labour's roots would ordinarily place them further towards the socially-liberal side of the spectrum for example.

 

[edwin_m]

I suspect it would also prevent parties trying to fight to attract all voters. Labour and the Conservatives have both jostled for center ground, whereas Labour's roots would ordinarily place them further towards the socially-liberal side of the spectrum for example.

Indeed. Voters could choose for example between a centre-left and a further-left party or parties with similar social policies but different on economics. Depending how the numbers came out, two or more of these might share government, finding a compromise around their disagreements, and a majority of voters would probably get at least some of what they wanted.

 

[Uncle Buck]

I was suggesting runoffs because I think that is better than ranked-choice voting. I feel that people don’t put much thought into ranked-choice voting and it can lead to flukes. A runoff presents two candidates and forces a choice.

I suspect it would also prevent parties trying to fight to attract all voters. Labour and the Conservatives have both jostled for center ground, whereas Labour's roots would ordinarily place them further towards the socially-liberal side of the spectrum for example.

The Labour Party’s roots are not on the socially liberal part of the spectrum. They have traditionally been in favour of the British parliamentary system, the monarchy, strong national defence and unionism. When they have elected figures who have rejected that posture, they have lost elections. Tony Blair recalled going to his selection meeting in Durham in 1983 and being asked his views on capital punishment. He said he was against it. The party members- in the most rock solid Labour area of the day- castigated him as soft on crime!

 

[oldman]

In Scotland there is single-transferrable vote usually with multi-member wards for local elections. However we have had two recent by-elections in my area to elect a single member.

In one ward the last three standing were CON, LAB, LIB. A lot of LIB switched to LAB who overtook CON to win.

In the other it was LAB, LIB, CON. A lof of CON switched to LIB who overtook LAB to win.

Both candidates with most first-preferences lost; the Tories got nothing (which was nice). It's rather negative and a bit arbitrary - more people preferred the winning candidate to the one in second place, but better than FPTP.

 

[Lloyds siding]

Our European elections fom 1999 to 2019 were a form of proptional representation. In England, Scotland and Wales the system was the d'Hondt calculation method and, in Northern Ireland, the single transferable vote system. If you remember you were asked to put your x against a 'party bloc' or individual independent candidate, seats were then allocated in a way that was proportional to the votes cast for each party or independent candidate. However, in Northern Ireland voters put their preferred choice by voting '1,2,3,4, etc.' for the three seats available in the one consituency.

 

[brad465]

"How does PR work?"

"D'Hondt worry, I'll explain..."

*runs for cover

 

[Tetchytyke]

Depending how the numbers came out, two or more of these might share government, finding a compromise around their disagreements

I think the risk is that the smaller, more radical parties end up being kingmakers. We've seen that in the Netherlands and especially in Israel, with the far right tail wagging the centre-right dog.

But then we have had that under FPTP- twice in the last 30 years the Ulster unionists have been kingmakers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2026 ==

Tony Blair recalled going to his selection meeting in Durham in 1983 and being asked his views on capital punishment. He said he was against it. The party members- in the most rock solid Labour area of the day- castigated him as soft on crime!

Nothing much has changed. Economically left-wing, socially very conservative. It's why Reform are getting so much traction in these places, they're appealing to the social conservatism as the differentiator now that there isn't an economic differentiator between any of the main parties.

 

[JohnofWessex]

Worst thing about it is that someone gets in............

There was a ward in Exeter with 3 parties each on 25.somethung percent of the vote, thats how bad it is

 

[pr1]

Looking at Scotland, where a form of STV is used for councils and AMS for Parliament, the sky hasn't fallen in, and councils continue to function. At the first council elections parties with no recent history of representation (the Conservatives on Glasgow council is the usually given example) showed that voters understood what the new system allowed them to do.

I agree with the example of Runcorn, above. Such a slim majority of six votes highlights the importance of every vote counting. I wonder what lessons might come from Makerfield.

 

[Vinnym]

But then we have had that under FPTP- twice in the last 30 years the Ulster unionists have been kingmakers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2026 ==

I think you will find it was the Democratic Unionists who entered into an agreement with the Tories but it wasn’t a coalition al a Lib Dem’s.