Daily Junction.mobi portalPolitics · July 26, 2026 · Sarah Mitchell · 10 min
Labour won 63% of seats with 34% of votes in 2024 — here's why Britain's electoral system is the least proportional in Europe and why reform will never happen.
On 4 July 2024, the UK held a general election that produced one of the most disproportional results in democratic history. Labour won 411 seats (63% of Parliament) with just 34% of the vote. Reform UK won 14% of the vote but just 5 seats (0.8% of Parliament). The Greens won 7% of the vote but just 4 seats. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats won 12% of the vote and 72 seats — five times more seats than Reform despite winning fewer votes.
This is not a quirk or a one-off. It is the inevitable result of First Past the Post (FPTP), Britain's electoral system, which is the least proportional in Europe and creates "electoral deserts" where millions of votes are wasted. The UK is one of only three European democracies still using FPTP (alongside France and Belarus), while 21 of 27 EU countries use proportional representation (PR).
Yet despite decades of campaigns for reform, FPTP endures — because it benefits the two major parties (Labour and Conservatives) who have the power to change it but zero incentive to do so. Here's why Britain's electoral system is broken, why it will never be fixed, and what the alternatives are.
First Past the Post (FPTP) is a winner-takes-all electoral system used in UK general elections (and in the USA, Canada, and India).
The UK is divided into 650 constituencies. In each constituency, voters choose one candidate. The candidate with the most votes wins the seat, even if they do not win a majority (over 50%).
Example: A constituency with five candidates:
Labour wins the seat with 35% of the vote, even though 65% of voters chose someone else. The 65% who voted for other parties get no representation — their votes are "wasted".
FPTP creates huge distortions between votes and seats:
The 2024 general election produced the most disproportional result in UK history:
| Party | Votes | Vote % | Seats | Seat % | Seats deserved (PR) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour | 9,704,655 | 34% | 411 | 63% | 223 | +188 |
| Conservative | 6,827,311 | 24% | 121 | 19% | 154 | -33 |
| Reform UK | 4,117,221 | 14% | 5 | 0.8% | 91 | -86 |
| Lib Dem | 3,519,143 | 12% | 72 | 11% | 78 | -6 |
| Green | 1,944,680 | 7% | 4 | 0.6% | 44 | -40 |
| SNP | 724,758 | 2.5% | 9 | 1.4% | 16 | -7 |
Reform and Green voters are massively under-represented compared to Labour voters.
FPTP creates three types of wasted votes:
In a safe seat, the losing candidates' votes are wasted. If Labour wins a seat 60-30-10, the 40% who voted Conservative and Lib Dem get no representation.
Example: In Bootle (Liverpool), Labour won 77% of the vote. The 23% who voted Conservative, Reform, and Green got no representation.
In a safe seat, the winning candidate's surplus votes (above the threshold needed to win) are wasted.
Example: In Bootle, Labour won with 77% of the vote. They only needed 50%+1 to win — the extra 27% were wasted.
In a safe seat, the outcome is never in doubt, so most votes are wasted (either for losing candidates or surplus votes for the winner).
Result: 70% of UK constituencies are safe seats where the outcome is predictable. Only 30% are marginal seats where votes matter.
This creates electoral deserts where millions of voters have no meaningful say:
FPTP benefits parties whose votes are concentrated geographically:
FPTP punishes parties whose votes are dispersed:
Labour and Conservatives together won 57% of votes but 84% of seats — a combined seat bonus of +27%.
The UK is one of only 3 European democracies still using FPTP:
21 of 27 EU countries use proportional representation (PR):
Under PR, the 2024 UK election would have produced:
No party would have a majority — Labour would need to form a coalition with Lib Dems (301 seats, slim majority) or Lib Dems + Greens (345 seats, comfortable majority).
This is how most European democracies work: coalition governments, power-sharing, and compromise.
FPTP produces results that bear no relation to how people voted. In 2024, Labour won 63% of seats with 34% of votes — a distortion of +29%.
70% of votes are wasted (either for losing candidates or surplus votes for winners). In safe seats, most voters have no meaningful say.
FPTP entrenches Labour and Conservative dominance. In 2024, they won 57% of votes but 84% of seats, squeezing out smaller parties.
Voters in marginal seats must vote tactically (for the "least worst" candidate who can win) rather than for their preferred candidate. In 2024, millions of voters voted Lib Dem or Labour to "stop the Conservatives" rather than voting for their first choice.
FPTP creates regional imbalances:
This creates a divided country where parties have no incentive to appeal beyond their regional strongholds.
FPTP usually produces single-party majority governments that can govern decisively without coalition partners. In 2024, Labour won a 174-seat majority, giving it the power to pass its manifesto without compromise.
FPTP gives every voter a local MP who represents their constituency. Under PR (party-list system), voters choose parties, not individual candidates, weakening the constituency link.
FPTP makes it hard for extremist parties to win seats (they need concentrated support, not dispersed support). Under PR, extremist parties can win seats with 5-10% of the vote.
![[View image]](/img/uk-electoral-system-first-past-post-reform.jpg){kind=link}