The First Past the Post voting system originated in the United Kingdom when it was used in some of the earliest, incredibly exclusive, Parliamentary elections anywhere in the world during the existence of the English Parliament. Despite many constitutional reforms to how we and who can vote, the UK has remained resolute to this simple plurality system. However, over recent years, there have been many calls for Britain to shift to a more proportional electoral system like many of our European neighbours. A vote for the adoption of the Alternate Vote system was held as recently as 2011. This was comprehensively rejected by the electorate, albeit on a low turnout. The decision by the 13 million Brits who voted ‘No’ to AV nearly fourteen years ago may prove to pay invaluable dividends in the protection of liberal democracy and the centre ground in the UK. The following arguments are not only a defence of First Past the Post but an active advocation for its merits at this time of growing political volatility.

Some of the basic arguments made by proponents of maintaining First Past the Post centre around political stability and the unique relationship between a local representative and their constituents. As First Past the Post is a ‘winner takes all system’, every resident in the UK will have an MP tasked with representing them and their area in Parliament, something that any constitutional reform must maintain. It is true that the idea of representative democracy is not exclusive to First Past the Post, for example, the Alternate Vote system maintained the idea of constituency-based representatives, as does the Additional Member system (used in Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections up to 2026). The AMS system combines First Past the Post constituency representatives supplemented by regional representatives voted in by regional list to achieve a more proportional legislature in relation to vote share, but both these systems would hinder the political stability First Past the Post provides. Under an AV system, the chance of minority governments and coalitions increases, and under AMS the chance of a single party achieving a majority is highly unlikely, as evidenced in Scotland where only once in six elections has a party won an outright majority – the SNP in 2011. Conversely, First Past the Post by nature is designed to provide strong government, with only 3 post-war elections resulting in no party winning an outright majority – February 1974, which resulted in Harold Wilson calling a second election eight months later; 2010, an unprecedented election which resulted in the first coalition in the UK for 65 years and 2017 which saw the Conservatives work in a confidence and supply motion with the DUP in a move which fatally weakened Theresa May’s authority. This instability would become only more common if we were to ditch First Past the Post, which has seen 16 of the 21 elected post-war governments up to the 2019-24 Parliament last at least four years in office.

An increase in coalitions could have an adverse effect on political parties in the United Kingdom. Presently, both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party are broad churches as they must try and attract different coalitions of supporters to win power. Having a broad range of views internally allows parties to debate ideas and widen their appeal to the public at large. This has been facilitated by the electoral system, and I believe this is healthy for democracy as it maintains the power of the centre ground and makes it incredibly difficult for the political extremes to achieve power and threaten liberal democracy, which is a growing threat across the world with the rise of the populist radical right. If the UK adopted some form of proportional representation, both major parties may be forced to move away from the centre ground to achieve power and find natural coalition partners. As a pragmatic Conservative, this is something I would fear happening as the Conservative Party would likely shift rightwards to some form of soft populism to offset the increased chance of Reform being the largest party on the centre-right/right wing of British Politics, providing both a natural coalition partner. The Labour Party would have more options for coalition partners, as there is little historical baggage for the Liberal Democrats with Labour as there is with the Conservatives, following the coalition which led to their disastrous 2015 election result which took them three elections (and strong anti-Conservative Party sentiment) to recover from. However, to appeal to the Green Party, Labour would likely have to shift leftward on economic policy and also impose stricter targets on their climate policies. 

There is also the threat to the Union moving away from First Past the Post could pose, as the SNP and Plaid Cymru would likely hold a significant number of seats in their respective nations which would give them significant leverage in coalition negotiations. This potential loss of the centre ground will only increase the polarisation in politics and will do nothing to reverse the increased political apathy seen over recent years in Britain, as politics will become increasingly ineffective at dealing with the problems ordinary people face in their day-to-day lives.

The increased frequency of coalition governments could also reduce the voice of third parties in British politics. One of the benefits of having respected third parties within the British political system is that they can bring forward issues that the major parties are not talking about and bring them onto the political agenda. The Liberal Democrats are a great case study for this, as their campaigning work on the sewage spills crisis was centrepiece to their 2024 General Election campaign and helped bring the issue firmly into the public consciousness. If the Liberal Democrats and other respected third parties were more regular participants in government through coalition, they would be forced to compromise more and act less like a pressure group, which has been key to the Lib Dems’ electoral comeback. It would also mean, the role of third parties would fall to less respected fringe parties, often on the political extremities and some with sinister motives, which would damage the health of liberal democracy in the UK. Further, they could easily replicate the effective methods of the likes of the Liberal Democrats and Reform UK to further their position within the British political system and gain as much representation as their electoral ceiling permits them.

Finally, coalition negotiations take time. In some countries such as Germany, it can take several months for a new government to be formed, leaving outgoing (and often defeated governments) to serve in the interim with little authority. One of the advantages of our system is that the strong government First Past the Post often takes office the morning after the election following the brisk transfer of power. This allows them to kickstart their term in office, with momentum from an election victory and immediately set the foundations for the next five years of government.

Overall, despite many well-intentioned arguments in support of constitutional reform to our electoral system, those of us in the centre ground must be pragmatic in supporting the continuation of First Past the Post for the reasons I have set out in this piece. With political volatility on the rise and liberal democracy threatened, First Past The Post may be the UK’s strongest defence against instability.