Electoral Reform, the facts and my feelings

Since the General Election, mentions of a need for electoral reform have been common. A system argued for by pretty much all of the smaller parties in Westminster, ranging from the SNP to Reform, it can be seen that arguments for this system somewhat transcend partisan divisions, being more of a small parties vs. bigger parties issue. My aim here is to give a fairly basic and easy-to-digest overview of all aspects of this debate, opening up about the positives and negatives, winners and losers, as well as what kind of system could replace the current First Past The Post system we have in place in the UK. Personally, while I see its merits, I do think a proportional system would not benefit the UK as massively as its supporters claim for reasons I will look into later, although if one were to be instituted, I wouldn't have any strong feelings against it.

Positives/ Negatives and surrounding issues

In order to boil down the positives and negatives of the changing of the UK to a proportional electoral system, I used my A-Level politics revision. It is here I found the most basic positives and negatives of a proportional system. 

Positives of a proportional voting system	Negatives of a proportional voting system/ FPTP positives
Offers fairer results more in line with vote share Could in theory increase voter turnout due to a feeling that votes matter more Fewer wasted votes  Ends safe seats caused due to FPTP Smaller parties better represented in the commons (one big current example is Reform UK - 14% votes to 0.8% seats link)	More simple system to understand and offers quicker vote counting and results Tends to produce a government with a clear majority and mandate Closer relationship between MP’s and the constituencies they represent Change to a proportional system was voted against in a 2011 referendum  Prevents extremist parties from easily gaining a footing in govt

These are the most basic arguments, but of course it goes much deeper than this as to whether it should be considered for the UK. Many arguments that come with the change to a PR system are also coupled with calls for a codified and entrenched UK constitution in order to protect this change. This would create a formal UK constitution in one document (rather than our current uncodified one), and the entrenchment would likely mean that any large scale change would require a supermajority or referendum from then on. 

The level of this kind of change also comes with debates as to the system that would be instituted (2 options I will look into later), as well as how it is to be enacted, can it be done with just a simple majority vote in the commons, or should it rather be an option given to the public in the form of a referendum? Is a common debate. One method of deciding on the system of PR that is instituted is the good systems agreement, put forward by the Make Votes Matter organisation. This method is where a panel of Citizens are given the ability to decide based on unbiased, evidence based deliberation and it is currently agreed upon by the SNP, Greens, Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru. This seems a complicated issue and there are many angles through which this change can be introduced, for a longer breakdown of the entire issue surrounding this feel free to look here.

Labours links to electoral reform

As the more open minded of the two major parties in the UK, Labour of course has had some links and deliberation when it comes to electoral reform. Starmer's Labour clearly do not have it on the agenda, in no small part due to the fact that the “winners bonus” associated with FPTP has benefited them greatly. However amongst the more left wing strands of grassroots Labour and the unions there has been calls for a change to a proportional system. This inner party support can be seen at a local level as well as with some of the decisions made by past labour governments, for example the use of proportional voting systems when creating the devolved assemblies under Blair (however this may have just been a tool to make sure it is difficult for these to form a majority government, making it harder to challenge Westminster). 

During the 1980’s Labour did call for electoral reform (partially in response to their awful polling) and this sentiment was picked up by the unions at the time and as a result is still held by many of them. Although this was dropped post 1997 with the institution of the “New Labour government. Personally I think this highlights why electoral reform is so difficult, once you win there is little real drive to change the system that placed you into government, it would lead to another election in which your party risks losing seats as well as a clear mandate and therefore would require a party with electoral reform as it’s number one issue in order to be successfully put into place, as otherwise it is simply just not a wise political decision. Info for this segment

The two main options of proportional representation

Single Transferable Vote (STV)

This is a system of voting already in place in the Northern Irish assembly in the UK, as well as in several local councils. It involves a system based around a ranking system of candidates e.g. you would rank them 1-5 with 1 being your favourite and 5 being your least favourite. Here is an example of an STV ballot paper: 

Within this system, you also see larger constituencies that tend to have five or six representatives, as well as multiple candidates from the same party on the ballot, allowing for a voter to choose a candidate based on merit, rather than just because they are the only option from their preferred party. Candidates are required to reach a specific quota of the vote in order to be instantly elected (usually 50%+) and if this is not met, the vote begins runoffs, where the least popular candidate is gotten rid of and his or her voters' second choices are transferred to other options. This cycle is then repeated until all representatives are successfully chosen. 

STV is the most proportional system to its credit, although it does have some shortfalls. For example the choices can prove confusing to some voters which could cause an increase in donkey voting. It also prevents a majority government being formed effectively without a multi-party compromise, this comes with several issues; in a system like this it can lead to no one getting what they want in the end, laws cannot be quickly and effectively passed making it harder to react to international events, and in the event no government can be formed it can lead to the country having a lack of an executive (this occurred in the Northern Irish parliament, which recently underwent a 24 month hiatus as a result of disagreement over forming government). 

Additional Members System (AMS)

The second proportional system already in place within the UK is AMS, it is currently used to elect the Scottish and Welsh parliaments, as well as the London assembly. This method of proportional representation offers voters 2 ballot papers, one where there is a list of candidates and one with a list of parties. Example: 

The candidates list is decided through the same method as FPTP, allowing each constituency to still have a specific MP while still allowing a proportional system through additional seats given in line with the second ballot party vote. This system essentially aims to act as a compromise between FPTP and other proportional systems, borrowing from each. However there can be some issues related to the differing workloads of constituency MP’s compared to ones elected as additional members, as well as the fact it does little to tackle the issue of safe seats and would result in a larger and bloated parliament.  

The winners and losers in a proportional system

Thanks to the Electoral Reform Society, we can have a look at how the election would've turned out had an AMS system been put into place here. It can be seen that almost every party gained seats compared to their respective share under FPTP except for Labour. The biggest winners under this system come in the form of the Greens and Reform UK, boasting 42 and 94 seats respectively (compared to 4 and 5). 

Now in real life outside factors would of course affect the vote, personally I would see both the Conservatives and Labour splitting as parties into differing factions due to the level of disagreement within both parties. However this does offer a good indicator of what we could possibly see. 

Personal feelings

I can see both sides of this debate. A more proportional system is undoubtedly fairer for the voter base, however I believe the major flaw comes in the lack of a majority party who can enact the change needed in a quick manner. Proportional representation leads to lots more infighting and slowing down of the governmental process, personally I would rather have a party I disagree with able to enact the change as they see fit for the country, rather than a squabbling mess of a government that achieves little. Populism also feeds into my fears over a proportional system, it has been on a steady rise and I don't think single issue parties that garner a larger vote share based on a weak message having more seats would be good for an effective government. 

While there are definitely some merits, I think it comes with just as many flaws as FPTP and therefore it makes little difference in my eyes if the change occurs or not, however if it was to happen there still could be positives to come from it.