Everyone has the right to vote in the UK. Therefore, everyone should have the right to be represented. However, this does not happen. The First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system in place in the UK has many advantages for the government, but also comes with significant drawbacks, detrimental to voter representation in Parliament.
FPTP requires each constituency to vote for an MP, with the candidate who receives the most votes becoming the constituency representative in Parliament. The party with the highest elected MPs becomes the governing side of Parliament, while MPs elected from losing parties make up the opposition.
A referendum in 2011 allowed the public to decide whether the voting system should remain FPTP or change to Alternative Voting (AV). During this period, co-minister Nick Clegg was opposed to proportional representation (PR). The voting system did not change, with the majority voting against the switch. However, turnout was only 42%, attributed to the government’s lack of clarity. This low turnout contributed to the Liberal Democrats’ demise in the following general election.
FPTP has its advantages, which is partly why the 2011 referendum went the way it did. It is amazingly simple and easy for anyone to understand, unlike AV, which comes across as more complex. This means it also produces quick results, showing who won in each constituency and which party will run the country. This is because no votes need to be disregarded, and a constituency represents a large group of people rather than every single person having to be counted at once for the larger winner. FPTP often leads to majority governments as well, which is easy and ideal, and tends to lead to smoother party reigns (at least hypothetically).
However, lumping people into an area means many Brits are not represented. For example, if someone were to vote Green in a constituency won by a Labour MP, they would not be represented in their own area, let alone in Parliament. This lack of representation became especially apparent in the 2024 General Election. The election scored 23.8 on the Gallagher Index, indicating extreme disproportionality. As a result, this marked a new low for the UK and also suggests that the Labour government does not have the support of the population, even if it appeared to at first glance.
This disproportionate representation often leads to the marginalisation of smaller parties. For example, parties like Green and Reform UK often come second in constituencies but have few seats in Parliament. As a result, this marginalisation contributes to the UK becoming a two-party system, with the Conservatives and Labour Party dominating. Consequently, the population does not get to vote for a party that fully aligns with their beliefs but instead votes for the party that is closest to their preference. This is known as tactical voting.
But when every person lives in a compromise, no one is ever happy, often leading to problems seen in recent governments. Dissatisfaction leads to high turnover rates of leaders within parties. If the leading party keeps disappointing, they need to make a change to try to keep the population on their side. This is seen explicitly over the last 15 years, from David Cameron to Theresa May, to Boris Johnson, to Liz Truss and then to Rishi Sunak, who then lost the general election massively to the Labour Party, headed by Keir Starmer. Since then, while leadership has been stable (finally), much of the population has been left disappointed by the Labour government. When people vote tactically, it also makes it difficult to see trends in the shift of the political landscape and who people would truly wish to vote for. People may long to vote for a small party they closely align with but feel like they would be wasting their vote to do so.
However, disappointment after disappointment by both the big dogs is making me think there may be a potential shift in the next general election. The recent leadership win of Zack Polanski for the Green Party in Wales and England has renewed people’s faith in the smaller party, particularly among young people, who overall did not turn out to vote in 2024. The rebrand of Nigel Farage’s UKIP into Reform UK has also become more popular, in line with the rise of conservatism across Europe. The emergence of Your Party headed by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana has been rocky to put it nicely, but it will also have an impact on voting behaviour in the next General Election, or even in the upcoming Holyrood Elections in May.
In summary, while FPTP offers speed and simplicity, its disadvantages – including lack of representation – carry significant consequences. If the major parties continue to fall short, the system could open the door to political extremes or significant realignment. The risk of convergence between major parties may drive voters to seek alternatives, further pressuring the system to adapt or be replaced. In Sweden, PR is used, meaning every individual votes for a party to represent them. 43% of the population has a high trust in their government, compared to the 39% OECD average. The country also has high satisfaction rates when using government administrations, with 73% of the population saying that they are satisfied, compared to the 66% OECD average. This shows that FPTP is not the only way to vote for a leader, and that other ways, such as PR, may lead to happy, healthier, and more hopeful populations.
