Rev. 22 Jan 26
Based on part of ARM’s “Preferential Voting – PV(ORCV)”, v0.1, 18 Jan 26
When FPTP was first introduced at the 1885 General Election in the UK, voters lived in a completely different political world. Parliament had just passed the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885, which abolished most multi-member constituencies and, instead, created single-member seats across the UK. Also, there were essentially only two political parties with sufficient voter support to form a government in Westminster. So, giving voters only one cross [X] on their electoral ballot paper was a sensible expedient back then.
Although political parties changed over subsequent decades, even as late as 1945 there were still essentially only two major parties for voters to choose between. However, this situation demonstrably no longer applies. Today, we live in a multi-party world, and the idea that voters should be given only one cross [X] to put on their ballot paper to indicate their personal preferences for who should represent them and their constituency in Parliament is madness.
As evidence of this madness:
– Annex A offers a representative a summary of recent critical quotations about FPTP
– Annex B describes the effect that FPTP had on voters in the most recent 2024 General Election.
Today, there seems to be no one – literally no one, locally or nationally – who is happy to go on the record in defence of FPTP as the optimal system of for capturing democratic votes in the UK. Indeed, the recent report of the APPG on Fair Elections explicitly says, on Page 6, that:
“A broad political consensus has emerged: parties with a combined 500 MPs (77%), including Labour, are in agreement that FPTP is a flawed system that is causing distrust in politics12. New polling has found almost two thirds (64%) of the public believe the government should address these flaws before the next general election.”
FPTP causes four problems in a multi-party election environment:
(1) The first problem is it forces voters to cast their votes tactically, out of fear that the candidate they least prefer will otherwise get elected.
Indeed, it could be argued that this is the biggest single disadvantage of FPTP, in that strips voters of the ability to cast their votes on the basis of their true, honest preferences.
Moreover, it fundamentally undermines the British concept of Representative Parliamentary Democracy (RPD), under which voters are supposed to vote in one member constituencies for the person whom they feel is best placed to represent their interests in Westminster and locally, and also subsequently be held accountable at the next General Election for how they’ve performed in terms of delivering on the promises they made in order to get elected in the first place.
As an example of what this problem looks like at constituency level, see Annex B.
(2) The second problem is that FPTP was never designed produce an allocation of seats in the House of Commons that is directly proportional to the votes cast for all political parties across the whole of the UK.
As the APPG report says on Page 11:
“Labour won a historic landslide victory on the strength of just one in three votes cast, securing 63% of seats in the House of Commons in return for 34% of the vote.
Because FPTP has no mechanism to ensure seats in Parliament broadly reflect the popular vote, British elections provide no reliable link between the level of public support a party commands and the amount of political power they are given.
When a party most people did not vote for is handed a large majority of seats, it makes most people feel they have little say over who governs Britain or over policies or decisions of government. Results in which as many as two thirds do not get the party they voted for in government contribute to the sense that the political system operates against the interests of most ordinary people.“
(3) The third problem, unseen by most people, is that FPTP makes elected MPs hugely dependent not on the support of their electorate at the next General Election but, instead, on the support of their Party Whips, who could withdraw Party support for them standing for re-election.
(4) The fourth problem, again unseen by most people, is that FPTP makes it virtually impossible for a genuinely, ideal Independent Candidate to be elected to represent voters in their local constituency.
The obvious question is: why is no one thinking or talking about how to “address these flaws before the next general election.”
The obvious answer appears to be as follows: Of these four problems, switching from FPTP to PV (ORCV) solves Problems 1, 3 and 4, but, unfortunately, not Problem 2, the problem of party-political disproportionality in Parliament. Hence, in today’s political environment, dominated by adversarial party politics, it is perhaps unsurprising that concerns over party-political disproportionality dominate discussions about electoral improvement.
Therefore, it is important to stress that replacing FPTP with PV (ORCV) is not a substitute for moving future UK General Elections to an agreed, optimal PR voting system (perhaps like the STV system used in Northern Ireland or the AMS system used in Scotland and Wales).
However, we do need to stress that moving from FPTP to PR at the next UK General Election is impossible in practice, whereas replacing FPTP with PV (ORCV) would solve three of the four problems associated with FPTP “at a stroke”, as former PM Ted Heath used to say, while concurrently paving the way for a move to PR at the earliest date possible thereafter.
———————————————————————
Annex A: Current Critical Quotations Concerning FPTP Voting
As far back in 1909, Sir Winston Churchill was one of the leading critics of FPTP, describing it as follows:
“The present system [FPTP] has clearly broken down. The results produced are not fair to any party, nor to any section of the community. In many cases they do not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities. All they secure is fluke representation, freak representation, capricious representation.“
More recently, Nigel Farage – a long-term critic of FPTP – has described FPTP more succinctly as “a busted flush” and “totally bankrupt”.
Indeed, it’s fair to say that no Party, no politician, no political commentator, no expert academic, no ordinary voter today has anything good to say about FPTP.
For instance, and for ease of reference, here is a representative sample of recent critical quotations concerning FPTP:
- Labour Party / Labour Reformers[3]
- Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform (internal group): “FPTP is unfair and deeply flawed, leading to voter apathy, disaffection with politics, and parliaments which don’t represent the people.”
- Labour All-Party Parliamentary Group report (Free but not Fair): “FPTP distorts representation, contributes to public apathy, and gives disproportionate power to certain votes while sidelining others.”
- Labour MP Alex Sobel (quoted in the same report): “Are we really comfortable with a situation where a party — even an extreme party — can win a thumping majority with, say, just three out of 10 votes?”
- Liberal Democrats[4]
- Liberal Democrats (official party position as put forward in campaign narratives): “FPTP robs millions of voters of voice.”
- Nick Clegg (2010, Lib Dem deputy PM advocating AV): “Under the current set-up, votes count more in some parts of the country than others, and millions feel that their votes don’t count at all.”
- Green Party
- Green Party of England and Wales (policy position): The party advocates ending FPTP for UK parliamentary elections and replacing it with proportional representation.
- Caroline Lucas MP (Green Party co-leader, quoted in electoral reform debate): “If democracy is about fairly representing the views of the people, we are failing at it with first past the post.”
- Scottish & Welsh National Parties
- Scottish National Party (SNP): SNP policy supports proportional representation (this implicitly includes a critique of FPTP as not reflecting Scotland’s vote materially fairly).
- Plaid Cymru: Plaid Cymru also supports proportional representation, describing current systems as undermining fair voice for Welsh voters (ERS manifesto commentary).
- Reform UK / Nigel Farage
- Nigel Farage (former UKIP / Reform UK leader): Nigel Farage described FPTP as “totally bankrupt” after UKIP’s disproportionate seat result compared with votes received.
- Reform UK public rhetoric (2024 election context): Reform leaders indicated the voting system has a “very demanding problem for smaller parties.”
(Their criticism is often framed in self-interested terms because FPTP penalises their vote distribution, but it still reflects substantive critique.)
- Conservative Party (stakeholder context)
- Conservative electoral reform commentary (internal analysis view): FPTP has left whole areas of the country effectively without Conservative representation despite real support. This is a party-specific critique rooted in constituency balance rather than proportionality.
- Cross-Party/Public Debate and Academic Commentary
- Make Votes Matter (campaign group): “The idea of a minority ruling over the majority goes against our most basic ideas about democracy… with FPTP it’s the norm.”
- ERS critique of 2024 outcomes: Under FPTP, large portions of voters end up without a representative they actually voted for — a clear failure of representation.
- ERS (on safe seats & voter choice): FPTP makes us vote against our true preferences and creates “safe seats” where voters lack meaningful choice.
- Hansard (historical parliamentary critique): “20% of the population of Wales voted Conservative yet not one of the 40 Welsh MPs was Conservative” — illustrating disproportional representation.
- Public Perceptions / Voter Frustration (reported in media)
- Guardian (undecided voters feeling disenfranchised): Many felt unable to vote for their true preferences because under FPTP their vote would not count.
- Guardian coverage of 2024 outcomes: The disproportionate nature of the election reignited debate because FPTP fails to reflect the popular vote.
- Reuters (smaller parties win big vote sharebut few seats): “Smaller parties … secured over 40% of the national vote but only received 18% of parliamentary seats due to FPTP.”
- Thought/Opinion Pieces and Commentary
- LSE Politics blog: Called the shift to FPTP “a mistake” and argued Preferential Voting reduces wasted votes and increases legitimacy.
————————————————————————
Annex B: Consecutive General Election Results under FPTP in SH&TD in 2019 and 2024
Back in 2019, in the constituency of South Holland and The Deepings (SH&TD), formerly, for many decades, the safest Conservative seat in the UK, Sir John Hayes (Cons) – nicknamed 7-Jobs Hayes locally, for obvious reasons – was re-elected on a share of valid votes cast of 75.9% on a turnout of 64.7% of total registered voters. This is a significant democratic majority by any standards.
In stark contrast, though, and owing to heightened tactical voting, Sir John Hayes was re-elected in 2024 on a share of valid votes cast of merely 38.0% (down from 75.9%) on a significantly lower turnout of just 58.5% of total registered voters (down from 67.4%).
This result can only be seen as a disgrace to the very concept of Representative Parliamentary Democracy (RPD)[2].
The problem facing voters in 2024’s General Election was that, while few people wished to see Sir John Hayes (Cons) re-elected, there were four candidates standing from other national political parties (Lab, LibDems, Greens and Reform), plus a highly credible, genuinely independent local candidate. So, having just one cross (X) to place on their ballot papers, electors voted largely out of fear, rather than out of genuine, honest preference, so their votes were split six ways.
This outcome would obviously have been avoided had voters been able to express their true preferences under the system of Preferential Voting (with optional ranked choice votes), i.e. PV (ORCV), rather than under FPTP.
2 It’s important to remember that the very concept of Representative Parliamentary Democracy (RPD) and the accountability of elected Members of Parliament (MPs) to the voters who elected them was originally pioneered in our extraordinarily inventive country, as far back as the Model Parliament in 1295 and the Putney Debates in 1647. Moreover, the concept of ‘one constituency’, ‘one member in Parliament’ and ‘one vote per elector’ still remains the bedrock of Parliamentary democracy in the UK.
3 While Sir Keir Starmer, as Labour Party leader, personally argued in 2022 against devoting legislative time to electoral reform during his first term in government, these internal Labour Party voices reflect overwhelming internal criticism of FPTP within the wider party.
4 The Lib Dems have consistently argued that FPTP is unfair because many votes just “don’t count”.