The 2024 UK General Election has exposed the flaws of Westminster’s First Past the Post once again.
The 4 July vote shows just how much the voting system used to elect MPs distorts how people vote at the ballot box. While Labour did well, Keir Starmer’s party won 63% of seats on just 34% of the vote.
This is a staggering mismatch between seats and votes, exposing the absurd unfairness of our electoral system once again.
Meanwhile, Reform secured 14% of the vote. Under a proportional voting system they would have roughly 14% seats but in the end they only scraped five seats. Similarly, the Greens only managed four seats on 7% of the vote.
The Lib Dems won 72 seats (11% of those available) on 12% vote, by coincidence broadly in line with their share of the vote. While the Conservatives – champions of our regressive system – suffered at its hands by winning 19% of seats on 24% of the vote.
The election has been called the most unrepresentative in British political history. In fact, the Gallagher index (a measure of electoral proportionality) was 24 (the highest ever in a UK election), backing these claims.
Some discussion of the Gallagher Index in the last few days, but the alternative Sainte-Laguë index paints an even worse picture – giving a disproportionality score of 48.8, a solid 49% more skewed than the second least proportional election (2015). pic.twitter.com/yoUHGrIEls
Of course, anti-Consevative tactical voting likely widened the disparity between seats and votes – with Lib Dem votes piling up in areas they could win and Labour in areas they could take. But that’s no excuse for the reality where we have a system in which, forgetting all motivations for why people vote a particular way, the total number of votes per party doesn’t result in result in matching seat shares. Tactical voting is a symptom of First Past the Post, showing the need for electoral reform. And at the end of the day, people deserve to vote for their favoured candidates without the fear that their vote won’t count. You should be able to vote for something, rather than forced into voting against something else.
First Past the Post has once again been exposed as a failed system. But with this comes opportunity for change.
While Labour’s leadership oppose a change in voting system, the massive mismatch is cutting through to citizens. There’s an opportunity here to stress this mismatch and make the case for Proportional Representation and continue the fight for reform.
It’s time to redouble our efforts to secure electoral reform. It’s time for Proportional Representation.
The Leader of the Scottish Conservative party Douglas Ross is seeking election to the constituency of Aberdeenshire North and Moray East after originally not planning to stand for Westminster. His decision came just hours before the close of nominations.
His original decision not to stand would have put an end to his dual mandate of being an MP and MSP. However, while his return to Westminster is far from certain, if he wins he will simultaneously sit in both parliament yet again.
When a politician holds two elected roles, they have a dual mandate.
These dual mandates are unfair on constituents who deserve full-time parliamentarians. Not part-timers. They are also highly impractical.
It may emerge that Ross plans on stepping down from his Holyrood role after the election but that remains to be seen. For now, it seems he is intent on maintaining his dual mandate.
Let’s not forget that we’ve been here before. A 2021 Panelbase poll even asked voters for their views on Ross’ intentions if he won seat at Holyrood (which he went on to do). It found that 67% of Scots think the MP for Moray should give up at least one of his numerous positions if elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2021. This suggested most Scots oppose dual mandates, as well as second jobs.
Douglas Ross’ decision ultimately exposes the absurdity of dual mandates in Scotland. It’s time to ban them once and for all.
How Scotland votes at the ballot box will almost certainly not be reflected in the House of Commons come 4 July thanks to Westminster’s archaic voting system. Time and time again, First Past the Post skews the link between voters and their MPs, resulting in unrepresentative parliaments where seats don’t match votes. Here’s what’s happened in past elections and what could happen this summer.
Scottish Labour is expected to do well come 4 July while the SNP are anticipated to lose seats. However, the extent of this turning of the tides will be exaggerated by First Past the Post.
Until 2015, Labour constistenly won well over half of Scottish seats on less than half the votes. Labour secured 41 of 59 seats on just 42% of the vote in 2010. In 1997 they won 56 of 72 seats on 45.6% of the vote while the Conservatives lost all their seats but still won almost one in five Scottish votes.
First Past the Post consistently amplifies the support of the largest party, giving them a disproportionately large caucus at Westminster. The same has happened with the SNP since the yellow tsunami swept away Scottish Labour in 2015. At that election, the SNP won just under half of all votes cast, giving them all but three Scottish seats. Then in 2019, the SNP won all but 11 seats on 45% of the vote. All of these are truly unrepresentative results.
While the tides are once again turning in Scottish Labour’s favour, the currents are shaped by the underlying structure, a voting system which will likely to lead to yet another extremely disproportionate election.
Although mapping voting intentions onto seat projections has significant limits under FPTP – due to the system’s inherently chaotic nature – recent projections estimate Labour could win over half of all Scottish seats on a share of the vote between 30 and 40%.
Under a proportional system, seats would match votes. And while we can’t know for certain what would happen under Westminster’s current voting system, Electoral Calculus estimates this would give Labour 29 of the 57 seats available. While only 5 percentage points behind Anas Sarwar’s party, the SNP would take just 16 seats – a significant fall from 2019. The Conservatives would win seven while the Lib Dem would win five. Under FPTP, seats won’t match votes yet again.
The Additional Member System used to elect MSPs at Holyrood is far from perfect. This site has covered it’s flaws extensively – making the case for continuous improvement of Scottish democracy. But AMS at least ensures that that MSPs are broadly representative of how people vote unlike First Past the Post which lets down Scotland and the rest of the UK again and again.
Replacing First Past the Post with a proportional system is the single most important transformation needed to improve Westminter. Proportional Representation isn’t a silver bullet but it will improve our democracy by ensuring that voters are fairly represented in parliament. Whoever wins on 4 July should keep that in mind.
Prime minister Rishi Sunak has finally called the UK General Election, set for Thursday 4 July, after months of speculation.
Although polling points to Labour and the Lib Dem doing well, with the Conservatives and SNP on course for losses, the actual results are far from certain. One thing that’s clear though is that our voting system will lead to highly unrepresentative results.
Time and time again, First Past the Post leads to parliaments where seats don’t match votes. The Conservative won a majority of seats on just 36% of votes in 2015 while Labour won on just 35% in 2005.
And while the SNP did extremely well in 2015, it’s unfair they won all but three Scottish seats on one in two votes while the Conservatives got zero Scottish seats in 1997.
There’s a simple solution to address this system failure. Adopting a proportional voting system will ensure fair votes and make First Past the Post history.
With Labour on course for a majority of seats on less than half the votes, we are set for yet another election where seats don’t match votes.
We deserve far better than this. Let’s make 2024 the last election held under First Past the Post.
Leader of the Scottish Labour Party Anas Sarwar has called for Scottish metro mayors in a speech marking 25 years of devolution.
The remarks follow his party winning all but one metro mayoral seats up for election south of the border this May, the most notable of which was Richard Parker’s win against incumbent Conservative Mayor Andy Street.
The main appeal of metro mayors is their ability to champion the areas they represent on scale not quite seen by constituency MPs. There’s little denying that Andy Burnham is able to grab media and government attention in a unique way suited to our current news and political landscape. Not to mention that to many voters elected mayors are seen as more accountable than a largely unnoticed council cabinet committee.
Furthermore, a metro mayor equivalent for Dundee for example could give different parts of Scotland the political attention they deserve, shifting focus away from the central belt.
However, metro mayors are far from a panacea. Despite the profile brought by the likes of Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan, the elections that put them in power are characterised by low turnout.
On top of that, elected mayors mark a shift away from deriving local government executives from elected councils. Concentrating such powers in one individuals would be a major jump from the culture of consensus set out with the set-up of the Scottish Parliament and shift to STV for local authorities, pushing Scotland in a more majoritarian direction.
Additionally, Scottish local government has far bigger problems such as funding and structural issues that imposing elected mayors or provosts won’t fix.
Any discussion about moving to a metro mayor system must be open, honest and frank. Crucially, three tests must be met if Scotland were to go down the path of introducing metro mayors.
Elected mayors put a significant amount of power in the hands of one individual. Yes, they have a team that do much of the day to day work but ultimately directly elected executive mayors arguably give mayors too much power. A simple truth about democracy is that despite best intentions, one individual cannot fairly represent the views of all their constituents. Any elected mayors would need to be accountable to voters at elections and to elected councils – proportionately elected and with real powers of scrutiny – throughout their term.
2. Preferential voting
The UK government’s Election Act changed the voting system for directly elected executive mayors from the Supplementary Vote to First Past the Post. The Supplementary Vote was far from perfect but it at least gave a broader mandate to elected mayors as opposed to FPTP. If Scotland follows England, we should learn from the mistakes of the Elections Act and use the Alternative Vote to elect mayors. A preferential voting system would empower voters and give mayors the broad mandates they need to lead.
3. Referendum
Lastly, directly elected executive mayors should not be imposed on a populace without consent, whether that be by any new Scottish Government or local authorities themselves. Any proposals should be subject to a significant consultation process and conclude with a referendum to determine whether they are the right decision for each community. Likewise, communities should be able to vote to revert to a cabinet system for local government if they choose.
The adoption of directly elected executive Scottish mayors is an intriguing prospect but it would have significant downsides, notably the concentration of executive power in one pair of hands and a major shift away from the consensus-building democracy that has characterised Scotland in the age of devolution.
There are of course potential benefits as seen in England but any concrete proposals for reform should be carefully examined and criticised where appropriate.
If Scottish Labour, or any other party, do ever introduce elected mayors then their implementation must pass the three tests outlined above. However, lawmakers should in the first instance focus on more pressing issues facing local authorities as opposed to looking south for flashy reforms that aren’t necessarily what they seem. Anas Sarwar should consider all this if introducing metro mayors is ever something he gets the powers to do.
The change, which comes into force for the 2026 elections replaces the Additional Member System with a Closed List Proportional Representation system. Under the reforms, the Senedd will increase from 60 to 96 members, made up of 16 multi-member constituencies of six MSs each.
While the Senedd uses a voting system aimed to deliver proportionality, the ratio of constituency MSs to list MSs negates much of this intent. At the 2021 election, Mark Drakeford’s Welsh Labour Party secured 30 out of 60 seats on 36.2% of the list vote (39.9% for the constituency), showing the mismatch between seats and votes.
The change to a party list system aims to address some of this, however, the proposed new system has its own flaws. In particular, the closed list element limits the say voters have over individual candidates. However, the change opens up a simple route to easily switch this change to an Open List PR system or the Single Transferable Votes if the Senedd sees fit.
The change in Wales highlights the need for reform at the Scottish Parliament as well. Scotland suffers a similar problem with its own Additional Member System although not to the same extent as Wales due to the slightly better ratio between constituency and list MSPs.
This year marks 25 years of devolution. And while Scotland’s voting set-up is more representative than Westminster’s chaotic First Past the Post system, the Scottish Parliament must follow Wales and commit to electoral reform.
When Humza Yousaf was elected as SNP leader by party members then first minister by MSPs early last year, the prospect of another change in first minister before the next election was seen as only a fringe possibility. Not anymore. The first minister’s unilateral decision to tear up the Bute House Agreement with the Scottish Greens could very well lead to his political downfall.
The Greens are furious. Alba are opportunistic. The SNP are divided.
Instead of adding more speculation to the state of play above, I want to address the mechanics of Holyrood’s democracy and how we can improve the status quo.
A change in government leader during a parliamentary term isn’t uncommon. And in theory it shouldn’t significantly alter the trajectory of a government if parties base their government policy on their most recent manifesto. But as much as we may want to keep the personality out of politics, the real world renders this impossible. We do not have a presidential system but voters do often cast their ballots with party leaders in mind, especially in the age of televised debates, the 24-hour news cycle and social media. Furthermore, when the leader of a government is replaced, in practice this can lead to significant policy changes, deviating from manifesto promises, without any citizen input. The most extreme example of this in modern times is the rise and fall of disgraced former Prime Minister Liz Truss. The Truss government set out to chart a very different course to the one her party was elected to deliver.
We live in a representative democracy where citizens elect a legislature which determines the government. Thankfully, MSPs do elect the first minister in parliament, unlike the chaotic conventions at Westminster. But when government leaders change, and crucially change policy direction from that set during the post-election government formation period (without any direct citizen input) we have to consider how accountable to voters this really is.
A province across the Atlantic offers a democratic mechanism that could be replicated at Holyrood, and indeed Westminster. The Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a landmass larger than the UK but a population smaller than Glasgow’s. Its House of Assembly has 40 members usually elected once every four years. However, when a premier is replaced between elections, an election is automatically triggered to take place within a year of the change. This happened most recently in 2021 after Liberal Andrew Fury took over from outgoing premier Dwight Ball.
Now there are drawbacks to this solution. Voter apathy resulting from multiple elections in a short space of time would be a possibility, not to mention costs of mandated additional elections. But a safeguard such as this would ensure that a change in government leadership has some input from the voters.
Of course, a third first minister in one parliamentary term has happened before. The death of Donald Dewar then the downfall of Henry MacLeish led to Jack McConnell becoming Scotland’s third first minister only a couple of years into devolution. The solution being proposed arguably would have added a layer of unnecessary chaos to the situation but it may have been less necessary back then. The Scottish Parliament had limited powers in those days and was still in its experimental phase. But now things are different. Devolution is a necessary part of our democracy, one to be protected and improved when necessary. Not to mention, the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government both have real teeth and should be held accountable by voters when there are major leadership changes.
And while we’re on the subject of accountability, Holyrood’s five-year terms are too long. Scotland switched away from four-year terms to avoid clashes with Westminster votes under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. With the act now repealed, Holyrood should follow Wales and return to four-year terms.
The events taking place this week may very well lead to an extraordinary general election later this year. That would be an extraordinary development but if we do end up with our third first minister in just over a year then an election would give much needed input from citizens.
What happens in Newfoundland and Labrador would need tweaking for a Scottish context. It’s not perfect and I’m not wholly committed to it as a solution, but it recognises the need to strike a balance between accountability and stability. With Holyrood currently tilted away from stability, an election trigger in the event of a changed first minister might just be a long-term solution.
Until 2023, the last time Scottish Labour led a Holyrood poll was in 2014. Since then, our politics have shifted dramatically. The UK voted to leave the EU, Nicola Sturgeon took over from Alex Salmond before being replaced by Humza Yousaf and Covid-19 changed the world – to mention some of many major changes. Over the past decade, the SNP have established their hegemony, winning election after election in Scotland, but is that starting to wane?
From these polls alone, Scottish Labour look likely to reverse their decline. The party has only ever lost seats at Scottish Parliament elections so this would be a major improvement. But the extent of any reversal is far from clear. I would put money on Anas Sarwar’s party gaining seats in 2026 but significant hurdles remain.
There are three clear things to watch over the coming two and a half years until the 2026 election (yes, two-and-a-half years, which is why we need to re-introduce four-year terms at Holyrood):
1. Labour in Westminster
Unless something goes terribly wrong for Labour – which is entirely possible in election campaigns, just look at Theresa May’s poor 2017 election – the party is on course to win a majority of seats at Westminster. If Labour do well in Scotland, there’s every chance that translates into Labour votes at Holyrood.
The party has been polling better in Scotland for Westminster votes for Holyrood votes, likely as that is a contest between Labour and the Conservatives on a UK-wide scale, squeezing out the SNP. If Labour show they’re back in 2024 then that can help their chances at Holyrood in 2026.
However, this does come with risks. Labour’s UK-wide strategy of being small-c conservative on radical policy commitments may win them the election but if that continues in government, the SNP will certainly take advantage of that. If Labour do well in Scotland in 2024, I suspect there will be an immediate polling bounce in Holyrood voting intentions but whether that continues will very much depend on what a Starmer government looks like in practice. Not to mention how much distance Anas Sarwar can put between his party in Scotland and Starmer’s in Westminster when it matters.
We can make Scotland the best place to work, live and thrive.
Despite significant political turmoil since 2014, the dial has barely moved on independence. The country is split roughly 50-50, with polls swinging back and forth between ‘yes’ and ‘no’. With the Conservatives looking like they’re on their way out, that can only help Scottish Labour’s case with the message that independence isn’t the only way to get rid of the Conservatives. However, this again is reliant on the assumption that Starmer governs differently from Sunak. There will surely be far more professionalism, integrity and accountability from Starmer but if the party sticks to its cautious, conservative approach then that can only give ammunition to the SNP.
On the other side, there’s also the independence dilemma for the SNP. Their strategy to achieve independence has stalled. As things stand, the practical route to independence – another referendum – is unlikely to happen this side of a Holyrood election. The question is, can they sustain their hegemony while failing to deliver what they’ve been promising since 2011? Maybe they will, but Salmond and others will be waiting for an opportunity to take advantage of the situation.
So far in this article I’ve taken the assumption that Conservatives will go backwards at the next election. I’d be surprised if that wasn’t confirmed in 2026. Johnson, Truss and Sunak have inflicted considerable damage on their party. There’s a base-level they won’t go below in Scotland but as things stand they may well approach it.
That is of course if they don’t carve out a distinct narrative ahead of 2026 and shoulder up some of the unionist support they secured in recent years. Again, with Labour likely to do well in Westminster and with the SNP lacking in Nicola Sturgeon, they will be less likely to feed off the independence-unionist split that empowered them under Ruth Davidson and Douglas Ross. Nonetheless, there’s always the possibility of them changing leader trying something different in 2026. A Scottish Conservative resurgence looks unlikely, but Labour should be wary of any developments.
As ever there are a range of factors in determining how a country will vote. In addition to these things to watch out for in the coming two-and-a-half years, there’s also the election campaign itself. As policies fall apart and candidates face mishaps in the heat of an election campaign, the views of the public can change quickly.
Put simply, no one can tell which way Scotland will vote in 2026 but signs currently point to a Scottish Labour party on the up. Any increase in seats will be a win in itself, reversing a decline since the start of devolution way back in 1999. Supplanting the Scottish Conservatives as the second largest party is surely achievable as things stand. But as for leapfrogging both them and the SNP to become the largest party (and likely take Bute House) that is objectively a tough ask. It is of course certainly possible. With a charismatic leader in Anas Sarwar in the face of a tired SNP after seventeen years in government and a chaotic Conservative party in need of a reboot, the stars could well align.
Back in 2011, Canada’s NDP supplanted the Liberals in a dramatic election that saw the Leader of the Opposition Michael Ignatieff lose his seat. In the immediate aftermath of that election the Liberals looked certain to be picking up the pieces for a long time. But four years later, under Justin Trudeau the Liberals surged by over 20 percentage points to win a majority of seats, leapfrogging both the governing Conservatives and the opposition NDP.
Now of course, Scotland isn’t Canada but the pieces are moving into place for Scottish Labour to make the biggest leap of all.
On 18 September 2023, Mick Antoniw MS, Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution, laid the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill before the Senedd. The Bill outlines a series of reforms, as part of the Welsh Labour and Plaid Cyrmu cooperation agreement, the Welsh democracy.
The headline changes are the switch from the Additional Member System (AMS) to a Closed List Proportional voting system and an increase to 96 Members of the Senedd.
One important change which hasn’t received much attention is a return to four-year terms. This means that, if the Bill becomes law, after the planned 2026 election the next Welsh election will be 2030 – not 2031.
This switch to four-year terms will improve accountability and strengthen the link between voters and their representatives. There’s no right answer as to how often elections should be, but five-year terms lead to zombie governments (just look at Westminster right now) and limited accountability. They also mean voters going to the polls just twice a decade. Two-year terms on the other hand lead to constant electioneering as seen in the states. And there’s definitely an element of this in Australia and New Zealand, which have three year terms, as well as limited ability to take long-term actions. Four-year terms however, strike a sensible balance between accountability and stable governance. The Welsh Government’s reform is the right move.
Unfortunately, like Wales, Scotland moved to five-year terms in the Scottish Elections (Reform) Act in 2020 to accommodate the UK’s now repealed Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. The next planned election after 2026 will be 2031, one year after Wales’ next vote after 2026. There’s nothing wrong with devolved elections being out of sync but the accountability deficit in Scotland will be larger than in Wales. Holyrood can do better. To empower voters, and hold MSPs to account, that should change.
The Scottish Parliament needs a democratic upgrade – Holyrood should follow the Senedd and return to four-year terms. Parties should consider this ahead of the 2026 election.
This week the Netherlands went to the polls to elect members of its House of Representatives. The far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) secured the highest vote share (23.6%) and subsequently the most seats (37 out of 150). This is a deeply worrying development for European politics but it’s worth remembering that over three-quarters of voters didn’t back the PVV. I understand that Wilders gets the first shot at forming a government, but other parties can lock him out of power.
The Dutch parliament is incredibly fragmented due to the specific voting system it uses. Rather than having multiple multi-member constituencies as is the case with most proportional electoral systems, elections in the Netherlands use a single constituency to elect representatives.
With 150 seats up for grabs, the effective threshold for a seat is 0.67% of the vote. This results in an incredibly fragmented party system – fifteen parties won seats in 2023’s election. Consequently, this also leads to political instability and prolonged coalition negotiations. Israel uses a similar system, albeit with a legal rather than effective threshold.
🇳🇱#Netherlands, general election results (99,2 % counted):
To be clear, there are no mainstream electoral reform advocates arguing for such a system to replace First Past the Post (FPTP) and the Additional Member System (AMS) in Westminster and Holyrood respectively (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong!). A proportional system must strike a balance between overall proportionality and local representation. The Netherlands’ system fails to do that.
It’s no wonder that the newly formed New Social Contract party, which surged from nowhere to win 20 seats, has a plan to adopt a more Scandinavian system of PR.
A Netherlands-style PR system would be a step in the wrong direction for the Scottish Parliament but let’s see what would have happened if Holyrood went Dutch. Of course, this comes with the usual caveat the voting systems are a factor in how people vote and how elections play out so this is purely hypothetical.
Here’s how the Scottish Parliament would look (based on regional vote share, the standard 129 seats, with changes from the 2021 election in brackets).
The Scottish Parliament under the Dutch system would have a familiar feel but a few key distinctions. The SNP would lose out the most while Labour and the Greens would make marginal gains. The Lib Dems would be up two seats while Alex Salmond’s Alba would enter parliament with two seats and George Galloway’s All for Unity would narrowly get a seat.
Had I gone even further and used the 150 seats of the Dutch Parliament rather than the 129 at Holyrood, the same number of parties would have won seats (with slightly different total shares) and the Scottish Family Party would be within an inch of having won a seat. If Holyrood did adopt such a system, Holyrood would likely drift to a party system with more elected parties due to the low effective threshold.
As stated, the Dutch system’s main flaw is that it leads to extremely fragmented party politics and lengthy coalition negotiations. That said, the Scottish Parliament needs reform. But not this one. AMS is flawed by not being as proportional as it could be, has the two-vote problem and limits voter choice. An alternative such as the Single Transferable Vote (STV) or a Scandinavian-style PR system would be preferable.
upgradeholyrood.com 
