Readers respond to Gaby Hinsliff’s defence of first past the post, and Polly Toynbee’s call for electoral reform.
Gaby Hinsliff writes that proportional representation (PR) “doesn’t guarantee that we could all just vote for what we want instead of endlessly against what we fear (ask the French)”. Yet France does not use PR, which is precisely why tactical blocking occurs there. Indeed, there is overwhelming cross-party support in France for moving towards PR.
Under first past the post (FPTP), whoever wins the most votes takes the seat, even without a majority. That means a majority of voters in a constituency can end up unrepresented, as in Gorton and Denton, where six in 10 votes were not represented. The debate becomes not who can best represent you, but who can most likely beat someone else.
Hinsliff warns that PR risks coalitions “dangerously prone either to making disproportionately powerful kingmakers of tiny fringe parties … or making junior partners renege on their promises”. Yet Britain has experienced both: the Liberal Democrats’ broken promises in 2010 and the 10 kingmaker DUP MPs in 2017. The difference is that PR begins from representation that reflects how people voted.
If we take Hinsliff’s metric of doing “a sterling job of keeping extremists out”, she herself notes Reform could theoretically win 48% of seats on just 27% of the vote under FPTP. Under PR, such vote shares do not translate into majorities.
Ultimately voting systems should exist to reflect the will of the people. If they do not, is it rule of the people or rule by the system?
