The landslide victory for new British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party in the UK elections has once again underscored the flaws inherent in Britain’s first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system. With Labour securing a substantial majority of seats despite having only a modest 34 per cent of the popular vote, the election results have reignited debates about the fairness and representativeness of the system.

In the current political landscape, the FPTP system appears increasingly out of touch with the diverse and multifaceted nature of voter preferences. Labour’s 412 seats were secured with just 9.7 million votes, while the Conservative Party, despite receiving 6.8 million votes or 24 per cent of the vote share, ended up with only 121 seats. Even more strikingly, the populist right-wing Reform UK party garnered over 4 million votes or 15 per cent of the vote share but won a mere five seats while the centrist Liberal Democrats with 3.5 million votes or 12 per cent of the vote share, secured 71 seats.

Advertisement

The stark discrepancy between the number of votes and the allocation of seats highlights a fundamental issue: the FPTP system disproportionately benefits larger, established parties at the expense of smaller, emerging ones. This electoral distortion discourages political pluralism and limits the representation of diverse viewpoints in Parliament. Comparatively, other democratic nations have adopted proportional electoral systems that better reflect the will of the electorate. In France, a two-round voting system ensures that winning candidates typically have the support of an absolute majority of voters in their constituencies. Germany’s mixed-member proportional representation system allows voters to cast two ballots: one for a constituency representative and another for a party.

This hybrid system balances direct constituency representation with proportional allocation of seats based on party votes, leading to a more accurate reflection of voter preferences. The consequences of sticking with the FPTP system are manifold. It perpetuates a political duopoly, where two major parties dominate the political landscape, marginalising smaller parties and their supporters. This lack of representation can breed voter apathy and disillusionment.

Moreover, the volatility and unpredictability of election outcomes under FPTP can lead to unstable governments. Labour’s current victory, described as a “political sandcastle,” may be vulnerable to swift shifts in voter loyalty, potentially undermining long-term political stability. The call for electoral reform is not new. The 2011 referendum on changing the UK’s electoral system, though ultimately unsuccessful, highlighted a growing awareness of the need for a more representative voting mechanism.

However, the entrenched interests of major parties, who benefit from the existing system, pose a significant barrier to meaningful change. For a truly democratic and representative political system, the UK must reconsider its commitment to FPTP. Adopting a proportional electoral system would not only ensure fairer representation of all political voices but also foster a healthier, more vibrant democracy. It is time for the UK to embrace electoral reform and create a system that genuinely reflects the diverse and evolving preferences of its electorate.