The 2024 General Election in Scotland was a one-sided affair. Scottish Labour won 35.3% of the vote in Scotland and 64.9% of the available seats. While the SNP came a narrow second place on 30% of the vote and won 15.8% of the seats. The polls may have shifted since then, but can we expect to see a similar result in the Holyrood election this May?

Thankfully, elections to the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood do not work the same way as in Westminster. The Additional Member System we use was designed to be more balanced, to reflect how people vote rather than just who comes first. And understanding how that works helps explain both the strengths and the limits of the system.

Two votes, two different jobs

At a Scottish Parliament election, every voter casts two votes. One is for a local constituency MSP, and one is for a party or candidate on a regional list.

There are 129 MSPs in total. Of these, 73 are elected in constituencies, while 56 are elected from regional lists, across eight regions.

The first vote works in a familiar way to Westminster. Each constituency elects one MSP using first past the post, so the candidate with the most votes wins, even if the majority didn’t vote for them. First Past the Post can lead to the kind of crazy results we saw in Westminster, so this is where the second vote comes in.

This vote is used to allocate additional “list” seats, designed to balance out the results and make them more proportional overall – so Scotland’s parliament more closely matches how Scotland voted.

How the list system corrects results

After constituency MSPs are announced, the list votes are counted. Seats are then allocated to make the parliament more closely match how Scots voted in the regional list contest.

This means that parties which have done well in constituencies are less likely to gain list seats, as they already won their fair share of seats in the constituency contest. Parties that have been squeezed out locally therefore have a better chance of representation through the list.

It is often described as a “top-up” system. And that is exactly what it is meant to do. But topping up only works if there is enough room to do it. With 73 constituency seats and only 56 list seats, more than half of the Parliament is still elected using first past the post. We’ve previously written about how this could be improved to better represent how Scots vote.

Getting the most out of your vote

What does this all mean? The key thing to remember is that this is not a Westminster-style election. Holyrood’s voting system wants you to be represented in Parliament.

The typical region contains nine constituency seats and seven regional ones. As a result, a party or independent candidate needs to win around 6% in a region to win a seat. As long as you vote for a party that has at least this level of support, you should win representation in parliament.

If you support a party that is very popular in your region, there is a chance they will win their fair share, or more, of seats in the constituency contest, so they can’t win any more from the second vote contest. Should you split your vote then, and cast the second ballot for a different party? It depends on your appetite for risk. If your preferred party doesn’t end up winning all the constituency seats you expected, your clever tactical game could backfire as they miss out on list seats, due to a lack of list votes.

As Scottish voters prepare to go to the polls in May, they can do so knowing that their vote will count and the parliament elected will be representative – a luxury most voters in England don’t have in their local elections on the same day. And now, after 25 years of fair elections in Scotland, surely it’s time Westminster caught up and ensured that voters in England could vote with the same peace of mind.

If you care about the quality of our elections, join the Electoral Reform Society today

Join the Electoral Reform Society

When the Scottish Parliament was created, it was built to be different to Westminster. A system designed to reflect how all Scots voted, not just who comes first in each area.

Scotland uses what is called the Additional Member System. You get two votes. One for a local MSP, decided by First Past the Post – just like down in Westminster. And one for a party, used to top up the result so Parliament better reflects how people voted. As people can feel forced to vote tactically under First Past the Post, the system tries to get parliament to match how people vote in the second, party ballot.

In total, there are 129 MSPs. But here is the key detail: 73 are elected by first past the post, and only 56 from regional lists.

First Past the Post still distorts Scottish politics

First Past the Post is a crude voting system. Candidates can win a seat even if the majority didn’t vote for them. The same share of the vote can see one MP lose their seat while a neighbour celebrates a victory. And millions of votes can end up making no difference at all.

We already see this clearly at Westminster, where the UK-wide Labour party won a landslide (63.2%) of the seats in 2024, on a third of the vote (33.7%). In Scotland, Scottish Labour won 35.3% of the vote and a whopping 64.9% of Scottish MPs.

Thankfully we would never see a result like this in the Scottish Parliament, as the Additional Member System works to even out results that ignore the will of the Scottish people. But here is where the balance matters, because the more seats decided by First Past the Post, the harder it is for the regional lists to correct unfair results.

The Additional Member System can be designed on a spectrum. Do you have two thirds First Past the Post and one third List? Or closer to half and half? The more First Past the Post seats you have, the less proportional the system becomes. The Scottish Parliament’s 73:56 split means the majority of seats are decided with First Past the Post.

When votes and seats don’t quite match

This shows up in real elections like 2011. The SNP won 44% of the list vote and 45% across the constituencies. But this gave them 69 seats in total – 53% of the total. It’s nowhere near a Westminster-style results, but it is still nearly 10 percentage points off.

That is not as wildly disproportionate as First Past the Post alone would have been. The SNP won 53 of the 73 First Past the Post constituencies in this election, nearly three quarters of the available seats on fewer than half the votes.

Smaller parties, meanwhile, rely heavily on the list system to gain representation. And when there are not enough list seats, that representation is squeezed.

In the Lothians, the SNP won eight of the nine constituency seats – and thus half of all the seats in the region – despite winning just over 39% of the list vote. Its proportionate entitlement was seven seats. The ‘extra’ SNP seat would otherwise have been won by the Liberal Democrats who, as a result, failed to secure any representation in the region.

The result is a Parliament that is far better at representing voters than Westminster, but still not fully reflective of Scotland.

A simple fix that would make a big difference

While I’ve previously highlighted the problems with the way seats are allocated and the impact of regional rather than national top up lists, the solution to the problem of too many First Past the Post seats is not complicated.

Increase the number of list seats. Reduce the number of first past the post constituencies.

All you need is to shift the balance to closer to half and half, to allow the “top-up” part of the system to actually do its job. You reduce the distortions caused by constituency results, but keep the benefit of each area having a single go-to MSP. And you bring seats closer in line with votes.

Other countries using similar systems already do this. In places like Germany and New Zealand, list seats play a much larger role in balancing the outcome. That is why their parliaments tend to reflect how people vote more closely.

Voters in the 1997 devolution referendum were voting on a promise of a parliament that was not like Westminster. That promise was delivered, but we can shift the balance further towards Scottish voters.

Support ERS Scotland

ERS Members support our work in Holyrood and across Scotland’s towns and villages. Making the case, and backing it up for how we can build a more democratic Scotland, and fix the UK’s broken system.

Join the Electoral Reform Society

Everyone knows that First Past the Post favours the largest party. At the last Westminster election, Labour managed to turn 34% of the vote into 63% of parliament – a full 29 percentage points more. Thankfully we don’t use this system in Holyrood, but even here the largest party still gets an uplift. In 2011, for instance, the SNP won 54% of the Scottish parliament on 44% of the vote – 10 percentage points more.

The Scottish Parliament is made up of constituency MPs elected under First Past the Post, and regional ‘additional’ members that are supposed to even out the distortions of the constituency results. So why does the Holyrood system still tend to favour larger parties?

After the 2011 Scottish election Professor Sir John Curtice and Dr Martin Steven looked at the results for our report The 2011 Scottish Parliament election In-depth. They found that there are three key features of the system that give rise to this tendency:

A regional, rather than a national, system of proportional representation

Scotland’s 56 additional members are not allocated in proportion to each party’s share of the list vote across the country as a whole. Rather, they are allocated separately in each of eight regions. The typical region contains nine constituency seats and seven regional ones. As a result, a party needs to win just over 1/17th of the vote, or 5.9%, in a region to be sure of winning a seat – and in practice is certainly likely to require more than 5%. Parties that cannot pass this de facto threshold remain unrepresented, leaving more seats to be allocated to other larger parties.

For example, in 2011, both the Liberal Democrats and the Greens struggled to win seats. In winning just over 5% of the vote the Liberal Democrats only managed to secure representation in four regions, leaving their vote elsewhere unrepresented. With only 4.4% of the vote this fate befell the Greens in six regions. Together with the fact that apart from the independent candidate, Margo MacDonald, in Lothian, none of the smaller parties or independent candidates managed to win any seats, despite collectively winning nearly 8% of the list vote across Scotland as a whole, a significant body of votes did not contribute to the election of any candidate, thereby leaving more seats to be allocated to larger parties including, not least, the SNP.

There are too many First Past the Post seats

Additional seats account for fewer than half the seats in all regions. As a result, if a party is particularly successful in winning constituency seats there may be insufficient additional seats for it to be possible to correct fully the disproportionality created by the outcome in the constituencies.

In the Lothians region in 2011, the SNP won eight of the nine constituency seats – and thus half of all the seats in the region – despite winning just over 39% of the list vote. Its proportionate entitlement was seven seats. The ‘extra’ SNP seat would otherwise have been won by the Liberal Democrats who, as a result, failed to secure any representation in the region.

The d’Hondt method favours larger parties

The regional seats are distributed using the d’Hondt method. This method tends to favour larger parties, making it particularly difficult for a party to win its first seat. Alternative methods are available that do not have this property. In particular, the Sainte-Laguë method treats both large and smaller parties equally.

The use of the d’Hondt system clearly favoured the larger parties and made it more difficult for smaller parties to secure representation. Taking the West of Scotland region as an example, both Labour and the SNP would have won one seat less, while both the Liberal Democrats and the Greens would have secured a seat instead of being left without any representation.

West of Scotland Region

For the sake of clarity, votes for smaller parties have been excluded.

Forming a more perfect parliament

Put together, each of these features played some role in generating the disproportionality in 2011. No electoral arrangement is perfect, and if there are improvements to be made, we should not be afraid to make them. While a full upgrade to the ERS’ prefered system, the Single Transferable Vote, is one option. Improvements can be made to the current system by changing the balance of seats, electing members nationally, or using a fairer voting formula. Either way, Scotland should look again at how its parliament is elected. Further reform would help make Holyrood more democratic, more representative, and better able to serve everyone in Scotland.

Support ERS Scotland

ERS Members support our work in Holyrood and across Scotland’s towns and villages. Making the case, and backing it up for how we can build a more democratic Scotland, and fix the UK’s broken system.

Join the ERS today

As we approach the next Scottish parliamentary election, there’s a familiar narrative creeping into the conversation: that the system of proportional representation used in Holyrood is somehow ‘designed to stop a majority.’ It’s a catchy line, but it’s thinking about it upside down.

Saying that Scotland’s parliament is designed to stop a majority is like saying flat shoes are designed to stop you being tall. The shoes don’t subtract inches; they just don’t add them like heels do.

What the system actually does

Scotland uses the Additional Member System, or AMS, a mix of First Past the Post constituencies and regional lists. It’s not about blocking a party from winning outright. Instead, it doesn’t give out the kind of artificial boost that we saw in 2024 in Westminster, where a party with 34 percent of the vote took 63 percent of the seats.

That happens in First Past the Post systems like Westminster, where the rules favour parties that can narrowly win a lot of seats.

It’s important to note, though, that AMS isn’t perfectly neutral. It gives a modest lift to larger parties and those that do best in the constituencies. In 2011, the SNP benefitted from this, turning 44% of the vote into a slim majority at Holyrood. Current polling does show that SNP will benefit even more in 2026 from this winner bonus. This could be addressed with a minor change in the way votes are counted from D’Hondt to Saint Langue and a better balance between the constituency MSPs and regional MSPs.

Inverting the “designed to stop a majority” idea

When we frame Scotland’s AMS as a mechanism to “stop” anything, we misunderstand both its intent and its effect. AMS doesn’t prevent parties from winning if they genuinely earn it. It simply keeps the translation of votes to seats more proportional, more fair, and less chaotic than First Past the Post.

We can watch the results unfold with the knowledge that a majority is never off the table. What matters is how voters show up, which parties connect, and which messages resonate. The system shapes outcomes gently – it doesn’t dictate them.

If you care about the quality of our elections, join the Electoral Reform Society today

Join the ERS from £2 a month

Today marks 25 years since the London Assembly was formally launched. This means, a quarter of a century ago, the people of London gained a new voice – and an ability to elect their new representatives in the Assembly with a fair and proportional voting system.

Thanks to the Additional Member System (AMS), the London Assembly continues to deliver far more proportional outcomes than we see in Westminster, at UK general elections. Under AMS, parties win seats broadly in line with their share of the vote, allowing for real representation of Londoners across the political spectrum.

It’s a stark contrast to the outdated First Past the Post (FPTP) system still used for electing MPs – which in the last general election produced the most disproportional result in British history.

A quarter-century of fairer votes  

When the Assembly was created in 2000, it brought with it a commitment to fairer elections and greater accountability. The Additional Member System combines constituency representatives with members elected from a citywide list, ensuring that parties who do well across London as a whole are rewarded, even if they don’t win local seats.

In an AMS election, voters have two ballot papers. On the first is a list of candidates who want to be the sole representative of a particular area. Like a Westminster election, the voter marks their preferred candidate with a cross and the candidate with the most votes wins and gets a seat, even if most people didn’t vote for them.

On the second ballot paper is a list of parties who want seats in a parliament or assembly. Each party publishes a list of candidates in advance for these elections – a vote for a party is a vote to make more of their list of candidates into elected representatives. Seats are allocated in proportion to the votes a party received in the election, also taking into account how many ‘first vote’ seats they obtained.

This means every vote counts, and how people cast their votes is reflected in who they are represented by. Over the last 25 years, the Assembly has ensured that voices that might otherwise be ignored – smaller parties and independents for example– can have a seat at the table.

Under a fairer system, people are getting what they’re voting for

To put this into context: If the London Assembly had been elected using solely First Past the Post, then the voters of parties other than Labour and Conservative would have gone virtually completely unrepresented across the 25 years since the Assembly was founded. Of the 98 FPTP constituency contests held over the seven London Assembly elections to date, just one has been won by a candidate from a party other than Labour or the Conservatives.*

Fortunately, the Additional Member part of the Assembly voting system has ensured that other parties’ voters have achieved representation on the body. For example, across seven elections, 18 Liberal Democrat Additional Member AMs have been elected; 17 Green Additional Member AMs; 4 UKIP Additional Member AMs; and 1 Reform UK Additional Member AM.

Representatives of at least four parties have been elected at each Assembly election and five parties have been represented at four out of the seven elections, including the last election in 2024. This is a far fairer outcome for voters than would have been the case if the Assembly was elected using FPTP alone.

It’s time for Westminster to catch up

London isn’t the only part of the UK to benefit from fairer voting. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all use proportional systems in their devolved legislatures.

These systems have delivered fairer outcomes and better representation year after year. With research now showing that a majority of the public support proportional representation, the pressure for change is mounting.

As we reflect on the London Assembly’s achievements over the past 25 years, we should also look ahead. We’ve seen what fair votes can do: amplify voices, reflect real support, and encourage politics that serves everyone, not just the winners. It’s time to bring that spirit to Westminster.

It’s time that Westminster caught up with the rest of the UK and changed the way we elect our parliament, so it finally reflects public opinion.

Will you add your name to our call to scrap Westminster’s broken voting system?

Add your name to our call →

With around 84.5 million inhabitants, Germany is the most populous country in western Europe. A German Federal election, where representatives are elected to the Bundestag (Germany’s national parliament), is therefore always an important event. From our perspective, it is particularly interesting to explore the outcomes of a major election that is conducted under a system of Proportional Representation (PR).

How the voting system works in Germany 

Since the Federal election of 1953, the second post-World War II election held in the Federal Republic of Germany, a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system has been used for German Federal elections. In the UK, we describe this electoral system as the Additional Member System (AMS).

In this system, a number of representatives are elected in First Past The Post (FPTP) constituency seats and a number of ‘additional’ representatives are elected via a Party List system. The election of ‘additional’ representatives seeks to make the overall result of the election more proportional than it would have been if representatives were elected only via First Past the Post.

Different MMP or AMS systems seek to achieve different levels of proportionality. Germany’s MMP system is at the very proportional end of that scale, with the overriding aim being for a party’s seat share in the Bundestag to closely match the party’s vote share in the Party List section of the election.

One of the ways this is achieved is by having more Bundestag seats reserved for members elected via the Party List section (331 seats) than via the FPTP constituency section (299 seats). In contrast, the AMS system used for Scottish Parliament elections has more FPTP constituency seats (73) than Party List seats (56), meaning that Scottish Parliamentary election outcomes are often slightly less proportional than those for German Federal elections.

MMP systems allow us the interesting opportunity to explore how an election result might have looked if it had been conducted using FPTP, without the ‘additional’ seats that make the overall result more proportional.

What happened this time? 

In this regard, the results from the 2025 German Federal election are striking. The CDU/CSU alliance came top in 190 of the Bundestag’s 299 FPTP constituency seats*. This represents nearly two-thirds (63.5%) of the FPTP constituency seats, on the basis of just under one-third (32.1%) of votes across the FPTP constituency seats.

This outcome is remarkably similar to the 2024 UK general election, held under FPTP, where Labour won 63.2% of seats, on the basis of 33.7% of votes, which was the most disproportional election in the history of the UK.

The voting system does a far better job of reflecting the wishes of voters 

The difference between the German and UK electoral systems are the ‘additional’ seats that that mean the outcome of the 2025 German Federal election much more closely reflects how people voted than the 2024 UK general election did. Therefore, despite winning two-thirds of the FPTP constituency seats, the CDU/CSU won only one-third (33.0%) of Bundestag seats overall because its overperformance in the FPTP constituency section meant it was entitled to very few of the ‘additional’ seats.

Like many proportional systems, Germany’s includes an electoral threshold that parties need to achieve in order to enter the Bundestag. In this case a party needs to receive a minimum 5% of Party List votes across the country, or win a minimum of 3 FPTP constituencies, in order to enter the Bundestag and receive representation in line with their nationwide Party List vote.

Inevitably, some parties do not meet this threshold, which means that those parties who do reach the threshold receive slightly higher seat shares than their national Party List vote share. Despite this, there can be no denying that Germany’s MMP system has done a far better job of reflecting the wishes of German voters than the FPTP system did at last year’s UK general election. This is reflected in the below Party List vote shares and seat shares in the Bundestag:

Enjoy this blog? Join the ERS today to support our work

Join today

Proportional representation (PR) is not a voting system in itself. Instead, it’s the idea that seats in parliament should reflect the proportion of votes cast; something which can be achieved through a variety of electoral systems.

As such, there’s not just one way that PR works. But it’s possible to understand what it might look like if it were implemented across Britain by getting to grips with the nuts and bolts of the different types of voting systems which do establish proportional representation.

It’s also worth considering examples of countries which use PR for their elections.

The Single Transferable Vote (STV)

The ERS’ preferred proportional voting system is the Single Transferable Vote (STV). For an example of STV in action, we can look no further than Scotland, where it’s used for local elections, as well as Northern Ireland, which uses STV for local elections and Northen Ireland Assembly elections.

Under STV, larger areas elect a small group of representatives, as opposed to one person being elected for a smaller area.

Ballot papers also differ: STV gives voters papers with a list of candidates which voters number in order of preference.

Then there’s the vote count. To get elected, a candidate needs to hit a vote quota. But it doesn’t end there: across several rounds of counts, surplus votes are re-allocated from both successful candidates and candidates who’ve missed the quota, using voters’ numbered preferences as a guide. Under this system, votes don’t go to waste if your favourite candidate doesn’t win, making it a far more proportional system.

By contrast, under the current system we use to elect our Westminster representatives, First Past the Post (FPTP), even if a large proportion of voters voted for a candidate, those votes will be wasted if a different candidate receives just a few more votes. There can only be one winner under FPTP.

Find out more about STV

The Additional Members System (AMS)

Another proportional system is the Additional Member System (AMS). In the UK, it’s used in Welsh Parliament, the London Assembly, and Scottish Parliament. AMS uses two ballot papers. One lists candidates standing to be your local MP; the other is a list of parties. A vote for a party translates to a vote to make more of a party’s pre-published list of candidates into MPs.

The first ballot paper is counted first, with the winner elected via FPTP.  The second ballot paper count elects ‘additional members’ based on the percentage of votes as well as the number of constituency members already elected. The result is that there’ll only be a single MP for a constituency, but parliament itself will be proportional.

Find out more about AMS

Party List Proportional Representation

Party list PR is used around the world. In fact, it’s the most popular voting system globally.

Under the party lists system, constituencies are larger, with a group of MPs are elected. Parties will publish a list of candidates, and voters will be able to select from a list of either parties or candidates themselves.

There are three main forms of party list election: closed list, open list, and semi-open list. Regardless of the method chosen, the result will be highly proportionate, with seats largely proportionate to votes cast.

Find out more about Party List PR

If we want fairer elections where votes truly matter, we need PR. Though not an exhaustive list, the mechanics of the three voting systems described above all enshrine proportionality – and therefore do a far better job than FPTP in making sure voters’ voices are heard.

Proportional Representation Around the World

Around the world, fair votes under proportional systems to elect representatives is commonplace. Taking note of how these elections play out is helpful in illustrating the workings of PR.

For example, the ERS’ favoured form of PR, STV, is used in Ireland and Malta. And party list PR is the world’s most popular system: it’s used in 74 countries across the world.

What’s striking is that Britain is in the minority, globally, in its use of First Past the Post. That means we are lagging behind when it comes to making sure every vote matters.

Learn more about the use of PR globally

Do you agree that we should use proportional representation to elect our Westminster representatives?

Add your name to our call for a more proportional voting system in the UK→

And the results are out. This election has the biggest difference ever between how we voted and the MPs that now represent us.

This was the first election ever where four parties got over 10% of the vote share. It is clear that the British public is already voting as if we have a proportional system.

 You can explore the results on our dashboard

This article was updated in November 2025.

Proportional representation is the most popular form of democracy for countries in the world today. Proportional Representation isn’t one electoral system though, it’s the simple idea that the strength of each faction in parliament should closely match their popularity in the country. For many people, that is what living in a democracy means.

Each country will have a slightly different way to reach this goal, but there are a few broad families of electoral systems.

There are over 130 countries which use either a Proportional Representation or a mixed system to elect their lower chamber across the world. Less than 55 use the First Past The Post system, a minority of countries globally, one of which is the United Kingdom.

Those who still use First Past the Post tend to have it as a result of being former British colonies.

Type of system	Democracy in which it is used
Party List	59 – Albania, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Israel, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, Norway, North Macedonia, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, São Tomé and Príncipe, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Türkiye and Uruguay.
Single Transferable Vote (STV)	2 – Ireland and Malta.
Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)	4 –Bolivia, Germany, Lesotho, New Zealand.
Parallel voting/Mixed system	19 – Andorra, Greece, Guyana, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, Panama, Philippines, Republic of Korea, San Marino, Senegal, Thailand, Ukraine and Vanuatu.

This table is based on the Parline Database, and original research. We removed countries classified as ‘authoritarian’ by the Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index 2024. Please note that every country uses a slightly different implementation of their electoral system. Some countries could be argued to fit into multiple categories. With that in mind, the exact number for each system is contested.

Of the top 10 ranked countries on the Human Freedom Index 2024, an index which measures 86 indicators of personal and economic freedom, 9 are countries which use a form of PR for their elections (Switzerland, New Zealand, Denmark, Luxembourg, Ireland, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and Estonia).

Similarly, 9 of the top 10 ranked countries classed as ‘full democracies’ on the Democracy Index 2023, which is based on five categories “electoral process and pluralism, the functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties”, use PR (Norway, New Zealand, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Switzerland and the Netherlands). The United Kingdom sits halfway down the rankings of full democracies, coming 18th out of 23 countries classed as full democracies.

What are the main proportional representation systems?

Party List Proportional Representation is the most popular

Party List proportional representation is the most widely used form of PR globally.

In Party List systems, constituencies are bigger than under First Past the Post and voters elect a group of MPs. These constituencies could be a town, county, or whole country.

Open and closed list systems

Party List systems differ in the extent to which citizens can choose which individuals get elected.

In a ‘closed’ list system, an ordered list of candidates is published by each party. Voters mark their support for the party on the ballot, rather than an individual candidate. Once the election results have been announced, the party fills the seats they have won from their list of candidates in that constituency.

Alternatively, in ‘open’ list systems, each party draws up a list of candidates and voters can vote for an individual candidate from this list (in some countries – voters can choose to simply vote for a party rather than choosing a specific candidate).

Single Transferable Vote gives power to voters

Ireland and Malta use the Single Transferable Vote (STV), a form of proportional representation invented in Britain and the preferred system of the Electoral Reform Society.

STV gives voters maximum choice on who to vote for. Voters put numbers by the candidates on their ballot paper with the number 1 as their favourite, they can rank all candidates or just vote for their favourite candidate.

To get elected, a candidate needs to reach a set number of votes based on the number of seats available in the constituency and the number of votes cast.

If your favourite candidate has more votes than they need to gain a seat or has no chance of winning then your vote is transferred to your next choice, rather than making no difference on the outcome as it would with First Past the Post.

Under STV, voters can choose between candidates from the same or different parties, which incentivises parties to stand candidates who reflect the diversity of the party and the constituency. Independent candidates are no longer seen as a ‘wasted’ vote, ensuring every voter can have their vote heard and counted.

Mixed Member Proportional Representation keeps a single local MP

Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMP) is also known as the Additional Member System (AMS) in the UK. MMP is a mix of Westminster’s First Past the Post system and Party List PR – the goal is to provide a proportional parliament but also keep a single local MP. Both the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd use this system.

Voters have two ballot papers. On the first is a list of candidates who want to be the local MP. Voters choose one candidate from this list. The candidate with the most votes wins and gets a seat, even if most people didn’t vote for them.

On the second ballot paper is a list of parties, each party will have published a list of candidates prior to the election. Each voter can choose one party on the ballot paper, a vote for a party is a vote to support any candidate they have selected to be on their list.

From this second ballot paper, seats are allocated in proportion to the votes a party received, taking into account how many ‘first vote’ seats they obtained, then ‘topping-up’ the seats in the legislature to make the legislature closely match the votes cast on the second ballot.

Parallel Voting is only semi-proportional

Parallel Voting is often conflated with AMS/MMP as it is (most commonly) a mix of FPTP and PR. However, while in AMS/MMP the Party List element acts as a ‘top-up’ to cancel out the disproportionate results of the First Past the Post seats, in Parallel Voting the two ballot papers (FPTP and PR) are separate. The PR seats are simply added to the First Past the Post seats.

Conclusion

Each electoral system balances the competing requirements of how proportional they are (whether seats in parliament reflect votes cast), the connection between MPs and their communities and the extent to which voters can choose between different candidates.

While no system is perfect, the Electoral Reform Society has long championed the Single Transferable Vote as the best balance of these requirements for the UK.

Add your name to our call for a proportional parliament

While the need for reforming Westminster’s First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system is getting clearer every day, outside Westminster the process of reform has been slowly, but surely, going in the right direction. While there have been setbacks, the last few decades have seen voters across the UK benefit from fairer voting systems.

A number of electoral reforms have been implemented since 1997, including reforms in devolved nations and the UK as a whole. The disjunction between the devolved nations and the UK is due to the devolution of powers to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland legislatures and executives, which include elections and local government.

A history of electoral reforms across the UK

The introduction of Hereditary Peer by-elections

The one UK-wide electoral reform is also one that barely any of us can take part in.

The House of Lords Act (1999) reduced the number of hereditary peers in the House of Lords to 90 (the Earl Marshal and Lord Great chamberlain are ex officio members therefore they remained members due to the royal offices they held and are not included in the number of hereditary peers). Since 2002, when a hereditary peer dies or retires a replacement is chosen via by-election using Alternative Vote (AV).

Electoral Reform covering England, Scotland and Wales

1999 changed the way some MEPs are elected

The UK held elections to the European Parliament until 2019. Up until 1994 First Past the Post (FPTP) was used in Great Britain to elect Members of the European (MEPs), the Single Transferable Vote (STV) has always been used in Northern Ireland to elect MEPs. In 1999, party-list PR was introduced to elect Members of the European Parliament across Great Britain.

Electoral Reform covering England & Wales

The Introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC)

41 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are elected in England and Wales every four years, they were first introduced in 2012. Both the Lib Dem and Tory manifestos for 2010 included reforming police authorities. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition agreement included a measure to elect an individual responsible for the oversight of the police force in a designated area. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act was introduced in 2011, this included the commitment that the PCCs are elected via Supplementary Vote (SV) unless there are only 2 candidates in a region, then FPTP can be used.

From 2023, PCCs will be elected via FPTP.

Electoral Reform in England

Mayors come to England

English Mayors and the Mayor of London are elected via Supplementary Vote (SV), as of 2022 there are 26 elected Mayors in England. From 2023, mayoral elections in England and Wales (including the Mayor of London) will move from SV to FPTP. In 2024, a further 6 Mayors will be elected in England in Cornwall, the East Midlands, Norfolk, the North East, Suffolk and North Yorkshire.

Foundation of the London Assembly

There are 14 constituency members and 11 London-wide members in the Greater London Authority. London Assembly members are elected using the Additional Member System (AMS). There is one vote for a constituency member representative and one for a London-wide representative.

Electoral Reform in Northern Ireland

The Good Friday Agreement and Northern Ireland Assembly

In Northern Ireland, devolution was established through the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and was supported in a referendum in 1998. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland both had to vote in favour of the agreement in order for it to be accepted. The referendum passed and the Northern Ireland Act (1998) provided the legislative basis for the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive.

Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) are elected via Single Transferable Vote (STV), a form of Proportional Representation. STV was enshrined in the Multi-Party Agreement, signed by the British Government, the Irish Government and most of the political parties in Northern Ireland.

Local government in Northern Ireland

The process to replace the 1973 districts in Northern Ireland began in 2002 with a review of the existing 26 districts. In June 2012, the Northern Ireland Assembly approved the draft Local Government (Boundaries) Order and by April 2015 the previous 26 districts were reduced to 11 in the local council elections. Despite the boundaries and districts changing, the voting system stayed the same, Northern Irish local elections have used STV since the 1970s.

Electoral Reform in Scotland

The re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament

In 1997, voters in Scotland voted to create a Scottish Parliament, the Scotland Act established this in 1998 and the first meeting for the Scottish Parliament was in May 1999. The Scotland Act established an Additional Member Voting (AMS) system for Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs), this combines the traditional Westminster First Past the Post and PR.

Extending the Franchise in Scotland

Following the success of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds for the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, the Scottish Parliament voted unanimously to give 16- and 17-year olds the vote in Scottish Parliamentary and local elections in June 2015.

Scottish local government

Ten years on from the devolution referendum and more electoral reforms were on the cards in Scotland. In 2007 Scottish voters used STV for the first time to elect their local councillors. The Local Governance (Scotland) Act was passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2004, this Act enshrined the used of STV in all local election in Scotland.

Alongside the new voting system, a large-scale redistricting exercise was undertaken to introduce the multi-member wards needed to facilitate STV. Before the introduction of STV, Scottish voters elected 1,222 councillors to Unitary Councils within FPTP wards. Under STV, they elected the same number of councillors (1,222) to newly created multi-member wards, 190 of these wards elected three councillors, 163 elected four councillors.

Electoral Reform in Wales

National Assembly for Wales, now the Welsh Parliament

In 1997 a referendum was held in Wales which approved the creation of the National Assembly for Wales (Senedd), the Government of Wales Act was passed in 1998 and the Senedd sat for the first time in 1999. Members of the Senedd (MSs) are elected via AMS, the same voting system as is used to elect MSPs in Scotland.

Extending the franchise in Wales

In 2017, The Wales Act was created which gave decision-making powers to the Welsh Government on how best to improve Welsh elections. After consultation on this topic, The Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 and the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 were enacted which changed the eligibility requirements for voting in local election and Senedd elections; the Acts extended the franchise to voters over the age of 16, foreign nationals living in Wales and gave local authorities the power to change their voting system.

Local authorities’ voting systems

For the first time councils will have the chance to move to a system that gives voters more choice, ensures their vote counts and delivers greater representation. A huge victory for campaigners for electoral reform in Wales. Because of this Act individual councils will now get to vote on whether to move from the ineffective First Past the Post System to STV, potentially ending years of uncontested seats and disproportionate results. Across the border in England, all local authorities will remain stuck with a system that doesn’t effectively deliver for voters.

Reforming Westminster may be the ultimate goal, but the changes in Scotland and Wales have made a real difference in the lives of people living there. We now have over two decades of experience of proportional representation in the UK, and all that experience demonstrates the real benefits of reform.

Do you care about how we choose our elected representatives?

Members support our work in parliament, in the press and online – making the case, and backing it up – for how we can fix Westminster’s broken system.

Join the Electoral Reform Society today