Frequently asked questions

Q1. Labour’s in power with a huge majority so doesn’t that finish any chance of proportional representation?
 

A1. With 72 MPs we are the largest-ever parliamentary party committed to voting reform. We'll keep leading this crucial campaign, inside Parliament and among the general public.

In addition, this is almost certainly the most pro-PR Parliament ever. More Labour MPs voted for than against (59 to 50) in Sarah Olney’s landmark Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill win in December 2024; and many have also joined the All Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Elections.  

A huge majority of Labour party members support reform – it was backed at Labour’s 2022 party conference by local parties and unions alike and its 2024 manifesto and King’s Speech refers several times to the need to improve how politics works and to increase public participation.

Q2. But we lost the 2011 PR referendum.
 

A2. The referendum on the alternative vote (AV) was not about proportional representation or equal votes. AV has some merits but simply is not a proportional system and has never been Liberal Democrat policy. The volatile random chaos in our governments since 2015 shows the need for reform is urgent. We are campaigning on our long held belief in fair votes with our preferred system of single transferable vote (STV).

Q3. Surely we need broader constitutional and political reform? Changing the voting system is only a drop in the ocean.
 

A3. Voting reform is not on its own sufficient but it is the essential first step. The party has a package of political reforms, including proportional representation/STV for local government elections in England and Wales; votes at 16; a reformed House of Lords; tackling disinformation and taking big/dirty money out of politics. But Westminster voting reform needs to come first.

Q4. We need to restore high voter turnout at elections. So let’s introduce compulsory voting. It works fine in Australia.
 

A4. Forcing people to vote and punishing them if they don’t is not the answer. A fair, proportional voting system where everyone’s vote counts equally is the way forward. The current First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system wastes outright most peoples’ votes and disincentivises voting – so let’s change the system!

Q5. Under proportional representation, losers can win. First-Past-the-Post gives a nice clear result and a winner. It’s quick, easy and cheap to run. It’s how we do things here – and don’t forget we are the Mother of Parliaments.
 

A5. Losers win all the time under FPTP. Every Government since WWII has been elected on a minority of the popular vote! More people vote against than for the 'winning' party. We saw this in 2024 when Labour 'won' despite two-thirds of electors voting for a different party. Additionally, only 15% of MPs won a majority of votes in their constituencies. Where's the winner and where's the will of the people in that?

Q6. First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) leads to strong and stable governments, whereas coalition governments formed as a result of other voting systems never get anything done. Parties can duck accountability by claiming that being in coalition stopped them abiding by their manifesto.
 

A6. The fact that in 2022 alone the UK had three different Prime Ministers; and the chaos and volatile, broken politics of recent years undermines any such claims. FPTP is no guarantee of stability.
There are plenty of PR-using countries where there is stability, continuity and things get done: eg the Nordic countries, Germany. In fact just about everywhere – only Belarus in Europe also uses FPTP!

Q7. Proportional systems let in extremists. Farage would have had 90 seats in 2024.
 

A7. If any party – even an ‘extremist’ party – wins a significant proportion of votes, it is only democratic for it to have its fair share of representatives. We can win the argument through debate and policy, not by denying their voters at the ballot box.

A system which denies fair, equal votes all too easily leads to populist claims of ‘victimisation’ and ‘elitist exclusion’. We’ve seen extremists use those claims to infiltrate mainstream parties, such as Trump with the USA Republicans and the Brexit party with the Conservatives.

Under PR you have to win a majority of the votes to win power. We’ve seen all too often how under FPTP you only need 35% or so support to get a majority. In the Netherlands, populist politician Geert Wilders got 35% of the vote and had to negotiate with other parties. Under FPTP, he would probably have been forming his own government with a sizeable majority with that level of support.  

Q8. PR destroys the local MP-constituents link which is a cornerstone of our democracy. Ordinary peoples' connection to and belief in politics is already under threat. Now you want to make it worse.
 

A8. PR systems are already successfully in use in the UK – in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London – and local links are absolutely maintained and even enhanced as more voters get the representative they voted for.

Q9. PR is bad for stable politics. Look at Israel or Italy.
 

A9. We have tried and trusted PR systems working well and delivering stable governments in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and also the Republic of Ireland. Let’s look at and learn from experience of the British PR systems already in use.

Q10. What will a National Commission on Electoral Reform achieve? Do you support it? Haven’t we already had a commission? Your manifesto backs Citizens' Assemblies. Do you support a referendum on the voting system? You lost in 2011: scared of asking the people?

A10. We support a national commission in this Parliament. It will explore the growing deep distrust in, and alienation from politics that people are experiencing. It will look at how a proportional voting system will in time make politics work for ordinary people; learn from our experience of proportional systems in the UK and Ireland; and recommend which voting system will work best for UK general elections. A Citizens’ Assembly should be an important component of how the Commission engages with and listens to people.

We are open-minded about referendums; the key is to engage with the people and that's the key task of the Commission. Yes, there have been referendums but they’ve been controversial. On the other hand, the last Government changed the voting system for Mayors and PCCs simply by putting a bill through Parliament; and Wales changed its Senedd voting system following a commission. No referendum in either case.

Q11. What system would you replace First-Past-the-Post with?
A11. We believe the single transferable vote (STV) – already in use in northern Ireland, Ireland and Scotland – is best because it maximises the power, the voice and choice of the individual voter. But there are other proportional systems in use in the UK and we support a National Commission on Electoral Reform looking into this: taking evidence, listening to citizens, looking at experience to date and coming up with a recommendation.

Q12. The Liberal Democrats only want PR because they can't win under the present system. You want to be the power 'kingmakers' like in the hung Parliament after the 2010 General Election.
 

A12. The 2010 hung parliament led to huge losses for the Liberal Democrats in 2015 so the idea of 'third parties’ winning out under PR simply doesn’t bear up! The point of fair votes is not to benefit any one party but to empower the ordinary voter: to be sure all votes count and count equally.

If you have a question that we haven't answered here, why not contact us?