Britain’s general elections are decided by a voting system called first past the post. It is one of the oldest electoral systems in the democratic world, used by only a handful of countries – and it is currently producing results that many argue bear little relationship to how the British public actually votes. Here’s what it is, how it works, and why the debate about changing it has become one of the most urgent questions in British politics.
How does first past the post work?
In a first past the post election, Britain is divided into 650 individual constituencies. Each constituency elects one Member of Parliament. The candidate with the most votes in that constituency wins – regardless of what percentage of the vote they receive. There is no minimum threshold. A candidate who wins 30% of the vote beats a candidate who wins 29%, even if the remaining 71% of the constituency voted against the winner.
The name comes from horse racing: the first horse past the post wins, even if it wins by a nose. In electoral terms, all that matters is finishing first in your constituency. Coming second, even with a large number of votes, counts for nothing.
Why does it produce disproportional results?
Because votes only count if they help elect someone. In a safe seat – a constituency where one party has won by a large margin for decades – votes for the winning party above the winning threshold are “wasted” in the sense that they don’t elect additional MPs. Votes for losing candidates are also entirely wasted. A party can pile up millions of votes in constituencies it doesn’t win and end up with no MPs at all.
The 2024 general election produced what the Electoral Reform Society described as the most disproportional result in British history. Labour won 63% of the seats in the House of Commons with just 34% of the vote. The Green Party received 6.8% of the national vote – nearly 2 million people – but won just 4 seats, representing 0.6% of the Commons. Reform UK received 14.3% of the vote – around 4 million people – but won just 5 seats.
In a proportional system, those vote shares would have translated into roughly 44 Green MPs and 93 Reform MPs. Instead they got 4 and 5 respectively.
What are the arguments for keeping it?
Supporters of first past the post make several arguments in its favour.
The most powerful is simplicity and stability. Under first past the post, voters make a single clear choice. Results are usually known within hours. The system typically produces majority governments – one party with enough seats to govern without needing a coalition partner. Coalition governments, by contrast, involve negotiation between parties after an election, giving voters less direct control over who governs.
Supporters also argue that first past the post creates a strong link between MPs and their constituents. Every voter has a specific named MP who represents their specific area – someone they can contact, lobby and hold accountable. In many proportional systems, some MPs are elected from regional or national lists, giving voters less ability to remove an individual representative.
Finally, first past the post tends to produce clear winners and losers, making it easier to hold governments accountable: if things go wrong, you know who to blame, and you can vote them out.
What are the arguments against it?
Critics argue that the system is fundamentally unfair – and increasingly dysfunctional as British politics fragments into five or more competitive parties.
The core objection is mathematical: millions of votes simply don’t count. If you vote for a party that finishes second or third in your constituency, your vote has no effect on the outcome whatsoever. This means the effective electorate – the votes that actually determine the result – is a subset of those who turn out. Parties can win large majorities with small minorities of the total vote.
The 2024 result crystallised this objection. Labour’s “landslide” majority was built on the votes of roughly one in three people who voted – and an even smaller fraction of all eligible voters including non-voters. Many Labour MPs won their seats with less than a third of their constituency’s vote, because opposition votes were split between the Conservatives, Reform, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats.
A second argument is that first past the post has historically forced voters to vote tactically – choosing the least bad option rather than the party they actually prefer. This suppresses support for smaller parties and distorts the picture of what voters actually want.
What is proportional representation?
Proportional representation is the alternative most commonly proposed. Under a proportional system, the share of seats a party wins in parliament roughly matches the share of votes it receives nationally. If a party gets 20% of the vote, it gets roughly 20% of the seats.
There are many different forms of PR. The most widely used in Europe is the party list system, where voters choose a party rather than an individual candidate, and seats are allocated in proportion to vote share. Germany uses a mixed system that combines constituency MPs with proportional top-up seats. Ireland uses the Single Transferable Vote, where voters rank candidates in order of preference.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all use proportional or semi-proportional systems for their devolved elections. The 2026 Scottish Parliament elections are conducted under an Additional Member System that combines constituency seats with regional list seats – which is why the Greens and Reform are expected to win significantly more MSPs than they would under first past the post.
Where does the debate stand now?
The debate about electoral reform has intensified significantly since the 2024 election, and the 2026 political landscape has given it fresh urgency. With five parties – Labour, the Conservatives, Reform, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats – all polling between 9% and 21% nationally, the distortions produced by first past the post are more visible than ever.
The Green Party is currently polling joint first in some surveys but would win a fraction of the seats that vote share would justify under a proportional system. Reform is in a similar position. Labour governs with a commanding majority it would not have under PR.
The Electoral Reform Society has been among the most vocal advocates for change, arguing that the system is producing “increasingly erratic and unrepresentative results.” The Liberal Democrats have long supported PR. The Green Party supports it. Labour’s position has historically been hostile to change – since first past the post currently benefits them – though some Labour MPs have called for reform.
The government has said it will reduce the voting age to 16 before the next general election, which would add millions of new voters. How those voters cast their ballots – and whether a future election produces an even more disproportional result – may determine whether electoral reform finally moves from debate to action.
Leave a Reply