Britain’s First Past the Post system was designed for a two-party age. One that pretty much everyone agrees we no longer live in. Yet even when most people voted for one of the two big parties, we still saw MPs elected with some pretty fringe views.
Of course, one person’s disgruntled ranter is another’s principled truth-teller, and in a democracy everyone should be represented, as long as they support democracy itself. But, voters need to be able to make an informed choice. On top of this, MPs with fringe views should not be able to impose their values on the rest of us. How well does First Past the Post, a system that is supposed to prioritise the views of the majority, score on these two fronts?
One party, one candidate, no real choice
Fringe parties don’t need to run in elections to have MPs with extreme opinions in parliament. Each major party can only stand one candidate per seat. On paper, that sounds tidy. In practice, it means you’re stuck with whoever your local branch picks. You might support the party’s broad values, but you have no say over which version of those values you’re getting.
You could think you’re voting for a steady, mainstream representative, only to discover your MP is fixated on a single issue, out of touch with your priorities, or pushing ideas that most people in your community reject.
There’s no safety valve, no way to choose between candidates within your preferred party – beyond joining a party and devoting all your evenings to internal selection battles. You either back them, or you don’t vote for the party at all. That’s how First Past the Post locks voters in and lets people with fringe views slip in through the cracks.
Power without popular support
Since 1931, every single-party government has been formed with under half the votes cast. In 2024, Labour won a landslide with just over a third of the public behind it. That means millions of votes go unheard, and the winners don’t need to speak for the country as a whole, just for the sliver of it that happens to be concentrated in the right seats.
But First Past the Post doesn’t care how narrow or extreme a party’s agendas is for them to benefit. They don’t have to win over most of us; they just need to squeeze through in enough key constituencies. Under First Past the Post, power comes from geography, not genuine support.
As more parties become serious contenders, the vote share needed to get elected drops. With three parties level pegging in a constituency the winner needs just over a third of the vote, with four it’s just over a quarter. A recent poll has placed 5 parties over 15% in the polls.
Parties with an agenda the majority reject can win not because most people agree with them, but because enough others disagree with each other. It’s voters that get crushed under the landslide.
Real representation, real choice
Voters shouldn’t have a take it or leave it choice. The Single Transferable Vote (STV) system of proportional representation changes this completely. Instead of one candidate per party, you can choose between several.
That means if your preferred party puts up someone who doesn’t speak for you, you can back another candidate who does, without wasting your vote. It’s also proportional, so parties only get as many seats as their support warrants. It means that extremists can’t sneak in on a split vote. To win under STV, you need broad support, not a narrow slice of it.
First Past the Post hands power to the few. STV puts power back in the hands of voters. It encourages cooperation, rewards moderation, and ensures that every community has a genuine choice.
If we want a democracy that reflects who we are, not just who shouts loudest, it’s time to move to the Single Transferable Vote.
Add your name to our call for a fair, proportional voting system
Add your name