The argument for proportional representation is seductive. Why is it right that a party that only wins 33% of the popular vote can govern with an overall majority? Admittedly, this is at the extreme end of results provided by First Past The Post (FPTP) in recent decades, but voting systems need to be defended across the variety of results that they can produce.
It is also easy to argue that it is fairer to require a coalition of parties that make up 50% of the total population, that it has more democratic legitimacy than allowing single party rule. An outright majority could be seen to provide more legitimacy, a greater mandate than a simple plurality of votes.
This, so far, seems perfectly logical, and as if FPTP is an unfair system. But is that really true?
Inevitably, all voting systems involve some form of compromise. Even in Switzerland, where regular referendums are held, representative bodies take many routine decisions. It would not be feasible to have referendums on every issue that is voted on in Parliament; it would lead to anarchy.
The question is which system treats voters most reasonably and represents their desires most successfully. The aim is twofold. It is not just achieving perfect democracy, but also good government. The endless referendums posited above could not provide good government even if they were perfectly democratic. The democracy point depends upon the way in which the majority of voters views are represented in Parliament.
In the UK, the last election is held up as an absurdity within FPTP. But is that really so? Most voters wanted to get rid of the Conservatives, whose vote share fell precipitately. They wanted Sir Keir Starmer to be Prime Minister, and each constituency seemed to vote accordingly. In seats where Labour was best placed to win, it did, while in those areas where the Lib Dems were the challenger to the Tories, they won. Labour, Green and Lib Dem voters coalesced around the candidate most likely to defeat the Tories and succeeded in this across the country. Thus, although Labour only recorded a surprisingly small share of vote, this was at least in part because voters were using a known system to achieve the result they wanted. So 2024 was not as peculiar as it at first seems.
In an FPTP system, voters also have a better idea of what they are voting for. All parties are coalitions with a variety of views within them. The Tory and Labour Parties both have their left and right wings which need to be accommodated, but they come together to unite in a manifesto which is then presented to the country. As years go by, they may then be held accountable for whether or not they succeeded in delivering on their promises.
When coalitions are formed, which rarely happens with FPTP, voters do not know what they are getting until after the election. Voters had a taste of this in 2010 when the Lib Dems broke their promise on tuition fees. Many of their voters felt bitterly let down by this decision, but it is inevitable in a proportional system. Governments unlikely to achieve a majority issue manifestos as a wish list, not as serious promises. This makes it easier for them to abandon their commitments and is not good for trust in politics. Electors are, in a sense, cheated by proportional systems, because what they have voted for is decided after the election, not before.
Coalitions suffer from other problems, especially their susceptibility to extremes. The balance of power tends to be held by the most left or right wing party, which gives it a disproportionate share in the government.
It may be unfair that a party could win 8% of the vote and only get two seats, but equally it is unfair for a party that wins 8% of the vote to hold the balance of power to pursue its views, when 92% of the country did not want them to win or support their opinions. I should rather have a government that was opposed by 60% but had won a plurality of votes in charge, than one that pushed its extreme views into Whitehall with over 90% opposition.
All democratic systems require a balance, a nuance of imperfection. The alternative to extremists holding power is the German approach, where the two main parties form a coalition. This is defensible on the grounds that most voters usually support the two main parties, although that has been changing recently, and that the centre of gravity of them are not that far apart.
However, it can become, outside a national emergency, obscenely undemocratic. At the last German election, voters punished the two main parties, who both fell to their lowest vote share ever, yet the government essentially remained the same. Although rejected by voters, they remained in power. The left-wing chancellor was replaced by a right-wing one, but nothing really changed. This seems grotesquely offensive to the electors who had rejected their policies.
Yet in a proportional system, it is a possible outcome, especially if, as in Germany, the establishment parties decide that one of the smaller parties may never be admitted to the corridors of power. Proportional representation can give voters less say in their government as policy is decided after an election rather than before. Fringe candidates may hold the balance of power and old parties may try to stitch things up.
FPTP provides clarity and accountability. It rarely requires coalitions and gives a plurality of voters what they wanted, whereas PR gives no voter what he asked for.
Then there is the question of good government. This has been in short supply in recent years and, in truth, is rare in our island story, whether it has been governed by monarchs, aristocrats or democrats. Nonetheless, FPTP offers clarity and direction in a way a coalition cannot.
It also dilutes the power of the central parties. In a proportional system, candidates tend to be chosen centrally and have to be popular with the party leadership. In the constituency system we have, candidates are decided by local parties who have a degree of independence from the centre. This makes it possible to ensure that there is a greater variety of candidates, and a closer representation of local views than is possible with the list system so common under PR.
In a coalition it is much harder for unpopular decisions to be made, or to go against the general consensus, however bad or out of date that may be. Attlee, Thatcher and Blair would not have been able to govern as they did in coalition, and only Attlee would have managed an actual majority on a PR basis. The majorities that FPTP gives allows governments to make decisions and to get things done.
The question for those on the Right to answer if they support PR is, do you want the Greens or Nationalists holding the balance of power and determining the fate of the nation on a tiny share of the vote? For those on the Left, the risk is probably Restore or the DUP.
If the answer is no and you would prefer the country to be run by the more reasonable parties on a decent share of the vote, then all logic supports the continuation of FPTP. It gives the majority of people most of what they want most of the time, whilst PR cannot do this.
Perhaps not surprisingly, parties that are doing well tend to like FPTP and those that are declining flirt with PR. The Liberals opposed PR before the 1920s when they were serious, and Labour only wants it now when it is polling around 25%. Reform liked it when it had less than 10% of the vote, but now it believes itself to be a winner it has changed its tune.
PR is a loser’s formula. It is bad for democracy, government and politics.
A reminder that you can earn rewards by referring friends. For instance, if you can encourage three friends to subscribe, you will receive a month’s paid subscription. For more details please see the Leaderboard page.
Your comments would be most welcome. Please click the button to join the conversation. Thank you.
