Daily Junction.mobi portalOpinion · July 16, 2026 · Naomi Clarke · 8 min
Labour won 412 seats on 33.7% of votes while Reform got 5 seats on 14.3% — the system is broken beyond repair and PR is the only solution.
The 2024 general election was the final proof that first past the post (FPTP) is broken beyond repair. Labour won 412 seats (63%) on 33.7% of votes — the lowest vote share for a majority government in history. Reform UK won 14.3% of votes but only 5 seats (0.8%) — 5.4 million voters effectively disenfranchised. The Greens won 6.8% of votes but only 4 seats. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats won 12.2% of votes and 72 seats — not because they were more popular than Reform, but because their votes were concentrated in specific constituencies.
This is not democracy. This is a rigged system that rewards geographic concentration over popular support, that wastes millions of votes, and that gives governments absolute power on minority support. Every major democracy except the UK, USA, and Canada uses proportional representation (PR), and they have better outcomes: higher turnout, more women MPs, less polarisation, and governments that actually represent how people voted.
The case for PR is overwhelming. The only question is: how much more damage will FPTP do before we finally adopt it?
The 2024 election produced the most disproportionate result in UK history:
| Party | Vote share | Seat share | Seats won | Seats deserved (PR) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour | 33.7% | 63.4% | 412 | 219 | +193 |
| Conservative | 23.7% | 18.6% | 121 | 154 | -33 |
| Reform UK | 14.3% | 0.8% | 5 | 93 | -88 |
| Lib Dem | 12.2% | 11.1% | 72 | 79 | -7 |
| Green | 6.8% | 0.6% | 4 | 44 | -40 |
| SNP | 2.4% | 1.4% | 9 | 16 | -7 |
Labour won a 174-seat majority on 33.7% of votes — less than Jeremy Corbyn got in 2017 (40%) when he lost. Two-thirds of voters voted against Labour, yet Labour has absolute power to pass any law it wants.
Reform UK won more votes than the Lib Dems but only 5 seats compared to 72. This is not a quirk of the system — it is the system working as designed to punish parties whose votes are spread evenly and reward parties whose votes are concentrated.
FPTP can produce wrong-winner elections where the party with the most votes loses:
This has happened twice in the last 75 years. It could happen again.
In 2024, 22 million votes (nearly half) were for losing candidates and had no effect on the composition of Parliament. If you vote for anyone other than the winner in your constituency, your vote is wasted.
This is particularly true in safe seats (over 90% of constituencies), where one party has such a strong lead that the result is never in doubt. In these seats, opposition voters know their vote will not change the outcome, which depresses turnout and reduces accountability.
FPTP forces voters to vote tactically — not for their preferred candidate, but for the least-bad option with a chance of winning. In 2024, millions voted Labour or Lib Dem not because they supported them, but to keep the Conservatives out.
This distorts the true level of support for parties and policies. We will never know how many people actually support Labour, because millions voted for them tactically.
FPTP gives governments absolute power on minority support. Labour's 174-seat majority gives it total control of Parliament, despite winning only a third of the vote.
This is what Lord Hailsham called an "elective dictatorship" — a government with near-absolute power, constrained only by the next election. Labour can pass any law it wants (nationalisation, tax rises, constitutional changes) with no real opposition.
FPTP rewards parties whose votes are geographically concentrated and punishes parties whose votes are spread evenly:
This creates a system where the SNP (with 1/3 the votes of the Greens) wins twice as many seats.
The UK is an outlier. Almost every major democracy uses proportional representation:
Countries using PR:
Countries using FPTP:
The UK is in a tiny minority of democracies that still use FPTP. And the results speak for themselves:
Higher turnout: PR countries have 10–15% higher turnout than FPTP countries, because voters know their vote counts.
More women MPs: PR countries have 40–50% women MPs (Sweden 47%, Germany 35%), compared to 35% in the UK (and only because of Labour's all-women shortlists).
Less polarisation: PR forces parties to compromise and form coalitions, which reduces polarisation. FPTP encourages parties to move to the extremes to energise their base.
More stable governments: Coalition governments are often more stable than single-party governments, because they require consensus and cannot lurch from left to right every 10–15 years.
Under PR, every vote contributes to the final result. There are no wasted votes, no safe seats, and no need for tactical voting. Voters can vote for the party they actually support.
PR produces parliaments that reflect how people voted. In 2024, a PR system would have given:
No party would have had a majority, and the government would have had to negotiate and compromise.
PR makes single-party majority government rare, so parties must form coalitions or work together to pass legislation. This forces consensus and moderation, and it prevents any one party from imposing its will on the country.
Critics say this leads to weak government and endless negotiations. But Germany has had coalition governments since 1949 and is one of the most stable, prosperous democracies in the world.
FPTP encourages parties to move to the extremes to energise their base. PR encourages parties to appeal to a broader range of voters, because every vote counts. This reduces polarisation and makes politics more civil.
In PR countries, turnout is 10–15% higher because voters know their vote matters. In the UK, turnout in safe seats is low because voters know the result is a foregone conclusion.
This is the most common objection, and it has some truth. Under PR, Reform UK would have 93 seats (14.3% of votes). But:
Coalition governments are not inherently weak. Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand all have coalition governments, and they are stable and effective.
Moreover, single-party majority governments are not inherently strong. Theresa May's government (2017–2019) was paralysed by Brexit, despite having a majority (until she lost it). Boris Johnson's government (2019–2022) was chaotic and scandal-ridden, despite having an 80-seat majority.
In 2011, the UK held a referendum on Alternative Vote (AV), which was rejected by 68% of voters. But:
Under some forms of PR (party list), MPs are elected from regional lists, not constituencies. Critics say this breaks the link between MPs and voters.
But:
The case for PR is overwhelming. So why hasn't it happened?
![[View image]](/img/opinion-uk-needs-proportional-representation-now.jpg){kind=link}