No voters rejected FPTP without necessarily rejecting the constituency MP. The most-respected No arguments included a call to keep local representation while changing how MPs are elected, and the blunt demand: “Every vote is supposed to count”.
Their case ranged from disproportional results to workable compromises. One No voter backed “a Single Transferrable Vote system” that would give an MP support from more than half their constituents; another called FPTP “a broken relic pretending Britain still has a two party system”.
Yes voters’ strongest arguments were about what might replace it: party lists, coalition bargaining and weaker accountability. One of the most-respected Yes cases warned against “party lists and coalition deals negotiated behind closed doors”, while another argued that “the problem is not FPTP, but the Party system”.
So the sides often answered different questions. No voters asked how to make representation fairer without losing a local MP; Yes voters asked whether reform would put more power in party hands or give smaller parties leverage. One Yes voter’s proposed compromise was a “second round for best two candidates” if neither led outright.
That tension makes this less a simple contest between change and continuity than a dispute over what accountability means: a representative voters can remove, or a Parliament that better reflects their votes. No prevailed, but the argument for reform was often a case for redesign, not for abandoning local representation.
70 Opinions
If the (in my opinion) utterly corrupt and hateful) Labour Party is allowed to change the system, they will engineer a system that guarantees a permanent left wing government. Whether that is one party or a hellish coalition of extremists (the Greens, Labour) and the lefty Lib Dumbs. This MUST be stopped at all costs.
1st past the post DOES NOT represent the ppl. When one party has more votes and less seats compared to a party who had less votes but given more seats in Gov. Proportional voting should represents us
I'm wary of proportional representation, particularly party lists and coalition deals negotiated behind closed doors. I want a directly accountable constituency MP whom voters can remove. Restore Britain has published proposals to strengthen electoral integrity, but its position on replacing FPTP needs clarification. Electoral reform must strengthen accountability, not transfer more power to party leaderships.
I value a local representative in Parliament but would move to a Single Transferrable Vote system where my MP would have the support of over 50% of their constituents
Every vote is supposed to count so lets have a system that makes it so.
The problem is not FPTP, but the Party system & sub standard Party appointed lobby fodder. Constituencies should have MPs who were born locally and appointed after a Primary process. UK needs independent MPs not place men & PR means that the public can never get rid of those on Party Lists. It’s undemocratic & brings back room policy decisions which totally exclude the Public. No thanks PR is corrupt.
Said before, cannot give green gaza mps power to push forward laws not consistent with British values
It's no longer for for purpose
FPTP is anachronistic in this day and age: we've seen far too many governments elected without a majority National mandate leading to a further polarisation of public opinions & knee-jerk reactions from the "vanquished "candidates. PR (Proportional Representation) will take more account of the wider electorate opinions. It does run the risk of more extreme views getting a 'voice', but that could bring accountability rather than just "shouting at the moon" from the sidelines.
I voted no because there is something wrong with a system that can give a party an almost unprecedented majority with the lowest vote share in the best part of a century, with a ridiculously low % of the population voting for them. I don't know what the best solution would be though. PR could lead to more hung parliaments and coalitions. Any new system has to have something in it that makes manifestos binding in law.