This May, the sixth set of elections took place for each of the devolved institutions in the nations of Britain – the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru (Welsh Parliament) and the London Assembly. It was a reminder that systems of proportional representation (PR) have now been in use in Britain for over two decades.

The Additional Member System (AMS) is used for elections to all three devolved bodies. This system is a combination of First Past the Post (FPTP) single-member constituencies and regional, multi-member constituencies, where a form of Party List PR is used. Once the votes in the FPTP constituencies have been counted and representatives elected, the party list votes in each electoral region, areas that cover a number of FPTP constituencies, are then counted. List seats are distributed with the aim of ensuring that the overall share of seats for each party matches the share of party list votes received, as far as possible.

How do the devolved election results compare with their Westminster results? Our analysis shows the gap in representation under FPTP is stark.

Scotland

On average, across the last seven UK general elections, the largest party has won 75% of Scottish seats based on just over 43% of votes (see Table 1). Across the six Scottish Parliament elections during the same period, the average result for the largest party is a much fairer at 45% of seats, having received 37% of regional votes (Table 2). The regional vote share is the best data to use for this comparison, as an aim of the AMS system is for the overall proportion of seats to match the regional vote shares as closely as possible.

A common way to measure the overall proportionality of an election result is via a Deviation from Proportionality (DV) score. The DV score shows the extent to which an election result deviates from proportionality, i.e. from what it would look like if seats were proportional to votes gained by each party. It gives a percentage of seats in parliament which are ‘unearned’ in proportional terms.  There are various ways of measuring DV scores. We have used the Loosemore-Hanby index, which is calculated by adding up the difference between each party’s vote share and their seat share and dividing by two. This gives a ‘total deviation’ score – the higher the score, the more disproportionate the result.

AMS consistently ensures far more proportional results than we see for Scottish seats at UK general elections, where FPTP is used. Across the last seven UK general elections, the mean DV score for Scotland is 32.3, whereas for Scottish Parliament elections it is just 10.7.

Table 1: Vote share and seat share in FTPT constituency seats, Scottish Parliament election 2021.

Table 2: Largest party over-representation at Scottish Parliament (AMS) and UK General Elections, 1997-2001.

Wales

In Wales, the largest party across these last seven UK general elections has on average won just over 70% of seats, based on 44% of votes. In contrast, across the six Senedd elections to date, no party has won a majority of seats, though Labour has won exactly half the seats on three occasions – in 2003, 2011, and 2021. On average, across the six Senedd elections, the largest party has won 48.1% of seats, having received 34.4% of regional list votes, a more proportional outcome than is in evidence at UK general elections in Wales.

Table 3: Largest party over-representation at Senedd and UK general elections in Wales, 1997–2021

The mean DV score for the six Senedd elections is 15.1, more than 10 points lower than the mean score for the last seven UK general elections across Wales, which is 26.9. However, it should be noted that the mean DV score for the six Senedd elections is over four points higher than that of the six Scottish Parliament elections (10.7). One of the reasons for this is the higher proportion of FPTP constituency members in the Senedd, compared to the Scottish Parliament. Whereas 56.6% of MSPs are FPTP constituency representatives, this rises to 66.7% of MSs in the Senedd. Consequently, allocation of the ‘additional’ members provides less scope for balancing out the results from the FPTP constituencies.

Major reform of the Senedd’s electoral system is on the agenda. Recent years have seen two major reports calling for reform, one from the Expert Panel on Assembly Electoral Reform, and the other by the Committee on Senedd Electoral Reform. Both recommend increasing the size of the Senedd to between 80–90 MSs, to acknowledge its increased powers since its creation, and so that the Senedd can properly hold the Welsh government to account. Alongside this proposed enlargement, both reports also recommend replacing the AMS system with the Single Transferable Vote (STV), the Electoral Reform Society’s favoured form of PR.

London

Across the last seven general elections, the largest party in London, always Labour, has won a majority of seats (Table 4). On only one occasion, in 2017, did they win a majority of votes. In contrast, no party has ever won a majority of seats on the London Assembly. The average seat share for the largest party at Assembly elections is 41.7%, on the basis of 34.6% of regional list votes, whereas across the seven UK general elections since 1997, the average is 65.6% of seats, from 45.6% of votes.

Table 4: Largest party over-representation at London Assembly and UK general elections, 1997–2021

As with the other devolved institutions, a comparison of the London Assembly DV score with the DV scores for the relevant portion of UK general elections, shows how the PR system produces overall results that are far fairer than those produced by FPTP. Across the six London Assembly elections, the mean DV score is 12.7, whereas for the last seven UK general elections, in London, the mean DV score is almost twice this, at 20.9.

Conclusion

After more than two decades of proportional representation being used for elections to devolved bodies in each nation of Great Britain, it is clearer than ever that FPTP for UK general elections is an outdated anomaly, creating wildly unrepresentative results, as the table above shows. Not only are the devolved parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales run under PR, but both parliaments have legislated for the further expansion of PR systems into local elections in each country. In Scotland, there have already been three sets of local elections held under STV and Welsh councils will have the opportunity to move to STV for their elections, after the next set of Welsh local elections in 2022.

Now that European Parliament elections no longer take place, voters in England, outside of London, no longer have the opportunity of taking part in elections held using PR systems. English voters are stuck with the outdated and unfair FPTP system for both UK general elections and for their local elections.

More than 20 years of experience have shown that voters in all parts of Britain can easily use and understand PR systems, and many greatly value the benefits that these systems bring. It is long overdue that all elections in the UK were run via proportional representation, with Westminster’s one-party-takes-all politics consigned to history.

Sign our petition for a fair voting system in Westminster

Speaking to her over Zoom, we discussed the Senedd’s early years, the effects of a proportional representation system on Welsh democracy – a year after Welsh councils won the power to introduce the Single Transferable Vote (STV) – and the need for UK-wide electoral reform, two decades on from the referendum that paved the way for devolution.

The interview coincides with the ERS’ new report celebrating two decades of proportional representation in devolved government across Britain. This piece was first published by the Institute of Welsh Affairs.

---

Josiah Mortimer: Tell me about the early days of setting up the Welsh Assembly.

Baroness Randerson: It was so exciting. It’s something no one can ever take away from me. What was so exciting was putting together our contrasting experiences—there was a very strong feeling that we didn’t want to reproduce the House of Commons in any way.

Another thing that made it very significant was all the women—half of us were women.

One of the things that any list system gives you is that the individual political parties feel obliged, when they stand back, to make their lists more balanced.

In the early months there was endless speculation about a coalition and it came to nothing. Long after they stopped doing media reports about a coalition, that it wasn’t going to happen, we started talking [Baroness Randerson and then-whip Andrew Davies AM]. And we did it in a fairly relaxed manner over the summer 2000.

And suddenly there we were, I think it was October. And it was a mastermind we’d organised, we’d got a whole great big document with a fully worked out coalition program—which by the way, was drawn on by the coalition not in terms of content, but in terms of process.

You do your policy commitments and agreements first—and only then do you discuss seats around the cabinet table, ministerial posts and so on. And once you can agree on that, then the people slot in.

You said you wanted the Assembly to work differently to Westminster. In what ways did that happen?

BR: One thing is that if you have things in a semicircle, it’s much more difficult to shout at people.

In terms of proportional representation, I did a lot of work with [former Conservative Member of the Senedd] David Melding because he represented the region that my constituency was part of. So, we saw each at events, in meetings, in the community. We worried about the same issues.

You do develop rivalries, but you also develop liaisons in terms of campaigning. But you’re also always looking over your shoulder and that’s the hard reality of why a form of proportionality works.

There are no safe seats in a properly proportional system.

Now, we’ve got the constituency seats [in Wales, under the Additional Member System]. Of course, you have safe Labour constituency seats. But they’re not as comfortable as they are in England, because if you represent a Valleys’ seat with a majority of 20,000, there is always someone else working on your patch [from the regional list seats].

There are a couple of good examples of Plaid taking seats in this way. Leanne Wood was an example of a Plaid AM who took a Labour seat as a result of really working hard in it, and working legitimately as a list member.

If you’re an ordinary MP for England and someone from another political party starts working in your constituency, you know they’ve got their eye on it. But they’re doing it from the outside.

If you’re a list MS and you’re working with a view to take over someone’s constituency seat, you have the right to all the same letters from ministers, all the same briefings from officials. If the residents call a meeting, you have a right to be there, and to meet residents if they come to the Senedd. You have a right to talk to them in the same way. So you are of equal stature officially. It puts you in a stronger position to campaign.

As a politician in a Proportional Representation (PR) system, you are always looking over your shoulder – because there’s other people picking up your caseload, picking up campaigns and so on. You have to try harder to be successful.

How do voters react to using PR?

BR: I think voters like choice, and they are well informed enough to use it. And there is a very strong tendency for people to automatically go to that constituency member. But if you don’t do well, they’ll go to a list member.

You’ve touched on something really interesting, which is the whole idea that people feel quite taken for granted under First Past the Post in Westminster.

BR: It is the being taken for granted that they don’t like. I think you might get it in some Valley seats, but that’s the constituency level not the list.

You’ve been in coalition and in Westminster as well as Cardiff Bay. It was a coalition under quite different circumstances, and also under a different electoral system. But did it feel similar in terms of process and of how it was perceived?

BR: I knew a great deal of thought was being put into how to make sure it lasted. And that was the same thing that we did with the coalition in Wales. So, when the media kept saying it [the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition] would be over by Christmas we kept saying, no. Those of us from Wales and Scotland said:  “No it won’t.” It was stable.

We had the same cynicism in Wales, where they thought it wouldn’t last. In Westminster, it worked out perfectly well. Except that the Lib Dems lost lots of seats. And I always say that I don’t believe it was inevitable because we were in coalition in Wales in 2000 and 2003. In 2003, our vote went up as a party in Wales.

We still had six AMs, and my majority doubled. I was deputy first minister for a year. I’d been a minister for three years. People didn’t punish me for it at all. So I don’t think that coalition was the great bête noire we’ve turned into in the UK.

What do you feel are the biggest changes that need to be made in Westminster to give it a much stronger sense of democracy and fairness? What are the things you’ve learned from how the Welsh Assembly was set up that you’d do differently in Westminster?

BR: I’d change the voting system for a start! I wouldn’t give it two different systems in one, I would do a proper regionally based system – Single Transferable Vote (STV).

As time goes on, I’ve become more and more alarmed by the anachronism of our whole system, in all sorts of ways. The voting system, the subsequent antagonistic basis for politics, the House of Lords which I think needs radical change.

I want federalism and one of my main roles in the Lords is trying to defend devolution.

The government is taking little bites, little chunks out of the powers of the devolved parliaments. And it’s the UK government trying to re-centralise.

There is an assumption all the time that it is an antagonistic relationship. And I think it’s time we look at our politics and said: this isn’t working for the people of Britain. It’s not properly representative, it’s aggressive, it’s confrontational. And if we’re not careful, it’s going to lead to the breakup of Britain.

I think that if you had a decent PR system, you would take the heat out of it. It would undoubtedly be part of a recasting of the British constitution, with a proper federal structure.

I tell you what really annoys me. When you talk to people about proportional representation, it comes down to, ‘oh, it’s complicated and people find it difficult’. That’s a load of rubbish. They do PR for all sorts of organizations. If they live in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland, they do PR for their elections.

In Cardiff, on the local council, we’ve got mainly multi-member ward. Lots of people act like there’s PR there – they put 1, 2, 3. And it’s so common, there’s an acceptance that this isn’t a spoilt ballot, but it’s someone who was refining their choice.

People manage their constituency vote, they manage their regional vote and very few of them get it wrong – so they’d manage STV fine.

I think Labour needs to see the writing on the wall. We need the leadership to have a conversation. And then we really we’d really be talking business.

Some questions and answers have been trimmed for brevity. 

A new report from the ERS, Here to Stay: Two Decades of Proportional Representation in Britain,  celebrates two-decades of proportional representation in Britain, including the Senedd, Scottish Parliament, and London Assembly.

In the foreword, hundreds of voters over in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and London – parts of the UK which use PR – have called for Westminster to abandon one-party-takes-all voting, and catch up with the rest of the country.

The report launch marks the anniversary of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997 on July 31^st, which paved the way for PR-elected devolved government in Wales and Scotland. The same day also marks Make Votes Matter’s ‘Make Noise for PR’ day of action – shining a light on the failings of the one-party voting system at Westminster.

Here’s the letter in full:

Across the UK, proportional representation is here to stay. Westminster needs to catch up.

As supporters and campaigners for electoral reform, it’s often easy to forget to celebrate the advances that have been made towards fairer votes. The damage done by winner-takes-all voting at Westminster overshadows so much of our politics.

While elections for the House of Commons remain warped, we are proud that for devolved elections in London, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, First Past the Post has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Across the UK, elections with a proportional representation system are becoming the norm. Millions of votes have been cast across the UK using PR, with voters rightly expecting to secure fair representation, not the pale imitation of democracy that one-party-takes-all politics provides.

The benefits of this are clear. In devolved elections, voters’ voices are amplified through proportional representation – a stark contrast to the silencing effect of Westminster’s system.

But while elections for Westminster and English councils continue to lag behind (Wales has recently passed legislation letting councils switch to the Single Transferable Vote), they will keep failing voters: reducing scrutiny, skewing resources, and silencing millions. It is a recipe for alienation, disengagement and division.

There is still some way to go, but our experiences in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London have shown the benefits of a fairer system: fostering cooperation and giving voters real power.

Now Westminster must follow suit. It cannot take two more decades for the Commons to catch up.

Rather than rolling back preferential voting – as UK ministers plan – we urge politicians to get with the times and back truly democratic elections at last.

Signed by over 650 ERS supporters in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and London.

Read the full report: Here to Stay: Two Decades of Proportional Representation in Britain

The 6 May 2021 was a milestone for the campaign for fairer votes in Britain.

The date marked the sixth set of elections to take place for each of Great Britain’s devolved elected institutions – the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd and London Assembly, and two decades of proportional representation (PR) being used for elections in Britain.

During this time, PR has become a fact of life for millions of voters.

Our new report Here to Stay: Two Decades of Proportional Representation in Britain celebrates two-decades of proportional representation in Britain – showing the benefits of PR over Westminster’s broken First Past the Post electoral system.

The report features endorsements of proportional representation from figures including Labour’s Clive Lewis MP, Green AM Caroline Russell, former Welsh Deputy First Minister Baroness Randerson, and Cllr Dave Dempsey, the Conservative opposition leader of Fife council.

As we show, proportional representation produces far fairer than Westminster’s broken winner takes all system.

Where PR was introduced in Scotland and Wales, both nations have since legislated to extend the use of proportional systems to local government. Since 2007 Scotland has used the proportional Single Transferable Vote (STV) for its council elections and in Wales, new legislation passed this year means that from 2022 local authorities will have the option from switching from First Past the Post (FPTP) to STV.

And it’s not hard to see why.

The report reveals how PR produces much fairer outcomes for devolved elections in Scotland, Wales and London than ‘one party takes all’ First Past the Post, in the equivalent nations and regions at Westminster level.

In Wales the gap between vote share and seat share for the largest party was almost double, in London it was almost triple and in Scotland, results were a staggering four times as disproportionate under First Past the Post than under PR.

It could be so different. The campaign for fair votes in Westminster continues to grow. With two decades of successful proportional elections in the UK, the case is stronger than ever.

Yet instead of backing calls for reform this report comes at a time where even small progress is under threat from the Government. Home Secretary Priti Patel recently mooted plans to impose First Past the Post for mayoral and PCC elections in England and Wales – a move that would turn the clock back on fair elections across Britain.

Because, as we have shown, First Past the Post continues to fail voters. It leaves them short-changed by an electoral system that, all too often, sees their votes cast on the scrapheap come election time. That’s a recipe for alienation, disengagement and division.

There is still some way to go, but our experiences in Scotland, Wales and London have shown the benefits of a fairer system: fostering cooperation and giving voters real power.

Now Westminster must follow suit. It cannot take two more decades for the Commons to catch up.

Rather than rolling back preferential voting – as UK ministers plan – we urge politicians to get with the times and back truly democratic elections at last.

Read the Report