[Based on text from ChatGPT]
Why PV is a major democratic upgrade on FPTP (in our UK context)
1. Every MP would have a real majority in their constituency
Under FPTP, many MPs – including in 2024 – were elected with well under 40% of the local vote. Some scraped home with barely a quarter of valid votes, and an even smaller fraction of registered voters. That means most people in those constituencies actively voted for someone else.
Under PV, the winning MP must secure a majority after transfers. If their first choice can’t win, your vote moves to your next choice. The final winner is the candidate who can assemble the broadest coalition of local support, not just the largest minority.
That makes it much harder for a candidate to “slip through the middle” because the opposition was split.
2. Voters can vote sincerely – without “splitting the vote”
FPTP punishes honesty. Voters are constantly told: “Don’t vote for who you really want – you’ll let the other lot in.” This lessens the value of the vote, breeds cynicism, and entrenches tactical voting.
With PV you can safely give your 1st preference to your true favourite – Green, Reform, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid, independent, whoever. If they can’t win, your ballot simply transfers to your 2nd preference, and so on. Your vote is never “wasted” for daring to support the candidate you actually like.
3. It reduces the “spoiler” effect and extremist wins on tiny pluralities
In multi-party politics, FPTP can elect highly polarising candidates on 30–35% (or less) because three or four broadly moderate candidates divide the remaining vote.
PV directly addresses this. If most voters prefer “anyone but Candidate A”, their later preferences will tend to converge on a compromise candidate. That compromise candidate will then win the final round – reflecting the true majority view of the constituency.
This doesn’t rig the system against any particular party or ideology. It simply ensures that “If a majority of us would rather have B than A, C, or D, then B should be our MP.”
4. It keeps what people value about the current system
PV is not a revolution in constitutional design. It keeps the core features many British voters like:
- Same constituencies: one MP per defined local area
- Same rhythm: one day of polling, once every few years
- Same ballot familiarity: you still mark a box by a name – but can add 2, 3, 4 if you wish
It is an evolution, not a complete departure:
- No national party lists
- No multi-member “super constituencies”
- No second round weeks later
For many who are cautious about change, PV is the smallest change that delivers a big democratic improvement.
5. It encourages healthier campaigning
Because second and third preferences matter:
- Candidates are incentivised to appeal beyond their core base, seeking to be many voters’ acceptable second choice.
- Negative, highly divisive campaigning is less effective, because alienating rivals’ supporters can cost you crucial later-round transfers.
In a UK that is more fragmented than ever – with five or more parties polling serious national or regional supportNuffield Politics Research Centre+1 – we need incentives that reward consensus-building rather than pure factionalism.
6. It is already proven and practical
Unlike more complex theoretical systems, PV:
- Has been used for decades in Australia’s House of Representatives and other national, state, and local bodies.
- Has mature administrative procedures, counting software, and audit practices elsewhere.
- Has already been used in the UK for certain internal party elections and mayoral contests (before recent changes).
The UK would not be a global guinea pig. We would be adopting a well-understood, widely tested system that fits neatly into our existing electoral framework.