Proportional Representation General Elections 2025-01-30

Eshalomi supported Sobel's motion, highlighting the issue of low voter turnout in the last general election. She agreed that change is necessary to increase public engagement and improve the democratic system.

Goldman recalls her election experiences, highlighting voter disengagement due to the first-past-the-post system. She supports preferential voting systems that could lead to proportional results, advocating for reforms that would increase voter turnout and engagement.

Race supports electoral reform but recognises the Government's priorities. He criticises previous measures like voter ID requirements and postal vote restrictions, suggesting returning to traditional voting methods without demanding ID. He recommends the Jenkins Commission's hybrid system for practical implementation.

Thomas supports electoral reform, citing his constituency's long-term Conservative representation as an example of a broken electoral system. He argues that proportional representation is necessary to ensure voter engagement and representative outcomes.

Ranger emphasises the need for electoral reform to address declining public trust in politics, low voter turnout, and youth disillusionment with democracy. He advocates for proportional representation as a step towards fairer elections and increased voter engagement.

Tice argues that the current electoral system is unrepresentative and undermines trust in democracy, citing examples of misrepresentation in terms of seats and votes. He supports proportional representation as a fairer alternative.

The hon. Member questions the lead MP's view on his Government’s proposal to reduce the voting age to 16, given that they were elected by voters aged 18 and above.

The hon. Member agrees with Luke Akehurst about voter disenfranchisement under first past the post and believes a different voting system would encourage more people to see their vote count towards influencing election results.

As a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member argues that proportional representation is urgent due to first past the post failing to translate voter will into parliamentary representation fairly and effectively. She cites specific election outcomes as examples of distorted representation (e.g., Labour securing 63% of seats with only 34% of votes) and emphasises that this system undermines trust in politics, leading to low turnout.

Supports proportional representation as an alternative to first past the post, citing examples from Scotland and Wales where PR is used successfully. Emphasises the importance of democratic legitimacy and warns of political instability if trends continue without change.

Opposes proportional representation, arguing it undermines local relationships between representative and constituents. Cites British Academy's analysis suggesting PR degrades accountability. Also mentions potential for coalition Governments which may undermine the popular vote.

Supports proportional representation, highlighting its necessity in ensuring political pluralism and representation from diverse points of view across different nations. Criticises first past the post for leading to disproportionate elections and misrepresentative Parliaments.

Discussed the benefits of proportional representation through her experience in the London Assembly, emphasising how it can provide a platform for diverse voices to be heard. She highlighted specific positive influences on policy outcomes like rent controls and youth services. Cited examples from her constituency work involving council estate residents, private renters, young people, disabled individuals, and older people.

Advocated for a more proportional electoral system while emphasising the need to preserve the link between MPs and constituencies. Proposed an independent national commission on electoral reform to explore multi-member wards and single transferable vote systems. Called for consensus building across parties and suggested timing a referendum in 2031, which would be 20 years since the last such referendum.

Emphasised three key arguments for proportional representation: addressing the gap between voting patterns and parliamentary outcomes, increasing voter engagement, and reducing tactical voting. Noted that despite recent electoral performance benefiting from a more proportional system in some regions, Liberal Democrats have long supported this change on principle rather than self-interest.

Dixon acknowledges the disengagement from politics due to tactical voting and under-representation, emphasising the need for fair votes. She supports proportional representation as a means to achieve stable government and long-term strategic policies in areas like social care reform. Dixon advocates for a national commission for electoral reform to address unrepresentative voting systems and rebuild public trust.

Jones expresses frustration with the current electoral system, citing historical examples of electoral reforms such as Catholic suffrage in 1829. He argues for fundamental change due to geographic location-based disenfranchisement and calls on the Government to commit to proportional representation.

Roca supports proportional representation, emphasising its importance in reflecting the will of the people. He highlights the declining legitimacy of the current system due to increasing under-representation and decreasing turnouts, and calls for electoral reform to address these issues.

Stressed the importance of a fair electoral system for women, those with disabilities, and ethnic minorities. Highlighted that the current system often results in a Government being elected without majority support from voters.

Acknowledged the need for electoral reform to rebuild faith in democracy but also emphasised the importance of delivering on economic and social issues. Suggested restoring ranked choice voting for mayoral elections as a straightforward policy change.

Used his constituency to illustrate how the current electoral system fails to reflect the diverse political identities of communities. Argued that it entrenches social division rather than fostering constructive politics.

Following up on that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in our current system, people vote for what can actually be very loose coalitions? Our electoral system forces us to have very large coalitions in order to form a Government, but voters do not know which parts of those coalitions they are going to get after an election.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and all members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections for securing this important debate. It has been an exciting few months for the cause of fair votes in Parliament, and I am pleased to see Members of so many political parties advocating proportional representation in today’s debate.

Will the hon. Lady give way? There was no Back-Bench speech from any Member of your party, and you will have your opportunity in a minute. Very democratic of you. Your Back Benchers could have spoken in this debate.

Defends first past the post as a fair and effective system, arguing it ensures clear accountability, stable governance, and a direct link between elected officials and their constituents. He cites historical examples of electoral reforms in Britain and references the 2011 referendum on voting systems, emphasising that voters rejected alternative systems.

Intervenes to question Paul Holmes about his stance on democracy and criticises the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. She implies that Holmes is more open to debate compared to Liberal Democrats.

Raises concerns about Israel's electoral system, suggesting it has led to disproportionate influence by extreme parties.

Questions Holmes on why the UK should not adopt proportional representation given that most other major democratic nations use it. He argues against Holmes' point about stability and first past the post's effectiveness.

Requests to intervene multiple times, but is declined by Holmes due to his emphasis on completing his points.

Challenges the Conservative party's support for first past the post and questions its fairness, particularly in light of historical defeats. She implies that the system is outdated and should be reconsidered.

Is mentioned as one of the few MPs supporting Holmes' position on first past the post during the debate.

He supports the first-past-the-post system, arguing that it delivers clear outcomes and stable governance. He believes that changing the system would be reckless and unnecessary.

Corrected a factual error regarding vote counts from a previous debate on proportional representation, demonstrating the importance of accuracy in parliamentary debates.

As Minister, she defended the current system while acknowledging its imperfections. She emphasised the need for a national conversation before any changes are made, prioritising economic growth over electoral reform.

Asked whether the individual mandate of MPs is strengthened under first-past-the-post compared to a party-list system, highlighting the direct relationship between MPs and their constituencies.

Invited the Minister to join an all-party group for fair elections, emphasising the link between first-past-the-post and declining voter engagement.

The MP expressed concern about the lack of understanding regarding proportional representation. They highlighted that a referendum was held in 2011 on the alternative vote system, which is preferential rather than proportional. The MP argued against waiting another generation before addressing the issue and suggested considering the establishment of a commission to examine failures in the current electoral system and potentially move towards a more proportional one.