A compromise many voters treated as imperfect still crossed the line, with Yes winning by 45 votes. The narrowness matters: this was not a ringing endorsement of AV so much as a decision that first-past-the-post has become harder to defend in a crowded party system.
The floor’s most-respected Yes case did not pretend AV was the destination, calling proportional representation “the only way to repair a massive injustice to voters”. Other Yes voices were more practical, arguing that AV was a “fairer & more democratic way of voting than FPTP”, even while conceding that “something needs to be done” might ultimately mean going further.
No had the larger chorus, but it split between defending the existing system and rejecting AV as insufficient reform. Its highest-respected case said simply that “the system works fine it speaks to a majority”; elsewhere, voters warned that “AV is not proportional representation” and would leave the deeper distortions untouched. The two sides were often answering different questions: Yes asked whether voters should be able to rank alternatives, while No asked whether a half-measure could justify changing the system at all.
That makes this a constitutional-reform result more than a clean verdict on one voting mechanism. Several No voters wanted proportional representation too, while resisting AV as confusing or strategically motivated; one described the proposal as an attempt to “tinker and fiddle resulting in no real change”. The old argument over decisive government versus broader representation was present, but the room’s more revealing division was between incrementalists and those who wanted the whole settlement reopened.
The vote gives AV permission to return to the argument, but not a mandate to end it.
25 Opinions
My no vote is more of a yes to a better voting system than First Past The Post. I believe in a single vote over two houses. Supplementary Vite for the House of Commons (I.E. 1st Choice, 2nd Choice) with the first choice also voting for party list proportional representation in the Second Chamber. Everyone gets representation but your MP isn’t elected on an “anyone but..” basis
We need to update our parliament and turn it into a democracy, not tinker and fiddle resulting in no real change
The alt vote is a half hearted attempt to change things a little, but make next to no difference, what we need is a complete change of system to a democracy
FPTP is the worst system except every other system I have seen.
We rejected AV in the 2011 referendum, and resurrecting a compromise fixes very little. AV is not proportional representation as it still leaves millions of votes unrepresented and can produce even worse seat to vote distortions than First past the post. If we are serious about fixing our democracy, we should implement genuine Proportional Representation... not waste time forcing a complex, flawed middle-ground that voters already turned down
First, read this: https://electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/single-transferable-vote/ Then read this: https://electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/alternative-vote/ Make up your own mind. You can change your vote on this site. Note: Proportionality is a CHARACTERISTIC of many voting systems. Opponents of Proportionality always choose Party List because it's rubbish (up one level from either link for other systems).
End up with nonsensical parties with hardly any MPs holding the upper hand. So minority will be pushing agenda against majority
Have we ever as a united kingdom ever not got who the majority voted for? We always do. The system works fine it speaks to a majority. We don't need anything more complicated eg usa.
We have a system designed to give decisive politicians free rein. But we have no decisive politicians. Moving to PR would require co-operative but still decisive politicians. But we have none of them.
Like the EU forever demanding that nations vote again, the Left are always seeking to gerrymander the voting system. It benefits from systematic postal voting fraud a confident State would have banned. Weak States tolerate it to our detriment. We have voted on AV & it was rejected. Nothing has changed. It is not a ‘fair’ system but one that favour Political machines. Ensure the independence and improve the quality of MP candidates and many problems disappear.