{"id":8612,"date":"2025-05-07T19:19:31","date_gmt":"2025-05-07T18:19:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/electoral-reform.org.uk\/?p=8612"},"modified":"2026-03-16T16:28:14","modified_gmt":"2026-03-16T16:28:14","slug":"whats-wrong-with-first-past-the-post","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/electoral-reform.org.uk\/whats-wrong-with-first-past-the-post\/","title":{"rendered":"What’s wrong with First Past the Post?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

First Past the Post (FPTP) is the name for the voting system used to elect Members of Parliament (MPs) to Westminster.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s also used in a variety of other elections across the UK, including local elections in England and Wales.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve been calling for the government to scrap First Past the Post, and to introduce a voting system that uses Proportional Representation<\/a> (PR) \u2013 namely, the Single Transferable Vote<\/a> (STV).<\/p>\n

But what, exactly, is the problem with FPTP?<\/p>\n

First Past the Post results in ignored voters<\/h3>\n

We live in a representative democracy. That means that when we elect MPs, we\u2019re electing people who\u2019ll represent our interests in parliament. We can get on with our lives while they stand up for the national policies that matter for us, be they on education, healthcare or taxation.<\/p>\n

The problem is, under First Past the Post, huge portions of us end up without a representative that we actually voted for. In the 2024 General Election, 73.7% of votes cast made no difference to the result – either going to losing candidates or candidates who already had enough votes to win.<\/p>\n

The reality is that First Past the Post delivers election results that are disproportional. In other words: seats in Parliament simply not matching votes.<\/p>\n

But how does this happen? Take the constituency of Somerset North. In the 2024 General Election, 53,766 residents cast a vote in this area. 19,138 voted for the winning Labour candidate. That\u2019s just 35.6% of all voters. Meanwhile, 34,628 \u2013 64% of voters \u2013 voted for somebody else. Their votes? Ignored. Even though they outnumber the people who voted for the winner.<\/p>\n

The story is repeated again and again across the country, and across our elections. Head north to Dumfries & Galloway, and just 29.6% of voters voted for the winning Conservative candidate.<\/p>\n

So a picture emerges of a Parliament that doesn\u2019t actually represent voters. That\u2019s why we have a Labour Government with 63.2% of MPs, on just 33.7% of the votes.<\/p>\n


\n<\/iframe><\/p>\n

In a representative democracy, we ought to have a Parliament that matches the way people actually vote. Under First Past the Post, that just doesn\u2019t happen. It needs to be scrapped \u2013 and replaced with the Single Transferable Vote, which will deliver fairer, more proportional election results.<\/p>\n

First Past the Post creates safe seats \u2013 which create complacency<\/h3>\n

In a democracy, every person\u2019s vote should count as much as any other, right? Not under First Past the Post.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

First Past the Post has created a network of \u2018safe seats\u2019 \u2013 where there\u2019s such a low chance of the seat changing hands, that parties don\u2019t bother campaigning in those constituencies.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Swing seats, where the results are much closer, are much more likely to change hands. Because parties care about getting as many MPs as possible, they\u2019ll invest their energy into the swing seats where they have a higher chance of convincing voters to change their minds.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Manifestos are designed with swing seats in mind \u2013 and parties spend most of their money campaigning in them.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

That means that if you happen to live in a safe seat, your political views are, in essence, irrelevant to the political parties. And that means that many of us are ignored by the politicians who are supposed to represent us.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It doesn\u2019t have to be this way. We could have an electoral system where parties don\u2019t just pander to the interests of voters in a select few seats, while ignoring the rest of us. A proportional voting system, such as the Single Transferable Vote would mean that votes would actually be reflected in who wins the election \u2013 with multiple MPs representing larger constituencies \u2013 so parties would have reason to care about every single vote.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

First Past the Post makes us vote against our true preferences<\/h3>\n

Many of us who have voted before are already familiar with the winner-takes-all workings of First Past the Post.<\/p>\n

This means that many of us opt to vote tactically in elections: voting not for our favourite candidate, but for the candidate we think is more likely to stop another candidate from getting the most votes.<\/p>\n

This is because we know that under First Past the Post a vote for a losing candidate will go to waste \u2013 so it can be more impactful to try to prevent our least favourite candidate from winning.<\/p>\n

In a democracy, we should feel empowered to vote according to our beliefs and preferences, rather than having to resort to tactical calculations and holding our nose while voting. First Past the Post means many of us end up thinking strategically at the polling station instead of voting for what we really believe in. It\u2019s a system that\u2019s simply not fit for purpose. <\/p>\n

By contrast, with the Single Transferable Vote, we’d be empowered to vote for the candidates we really want to see represent us, confident in the knowledge that our vote won’t just go to waste.<\/p>\n

First Past the Post isn\u2019t fit for multi-party politics<\/h3>\n

First Past the Post results in wasted votes and disproportional results regardless of how many parties are in the running.<\/p>\n

But in elections with multiple contending parties, vote shares end up being spread thin across an array of parties – resulting in MPs securing seats on very low portions of the vote.<\/p>\n

This happened in Northern Ireland in 2015, when the SDLP candidate for Belfast South won their seat with just 24.5% of the vote. Nine parties were in the running.<\/p>\n