UK Voting Systems Unpacked: A Guide to How We Vote

Explore the diverse voting systems used across the UK, moving beyond First-Past-The-Post (FPTP). Since 1997, various systems like Additional Member System (AMS), Single Transferable Vote (STV), and Alternative Vote (AV) have been introduced for devolved and local elections. Learn where each system is currently applied, such as FPTP for UK Parliament, STV in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and AMS in Scotland and London. We delve into their strengths and weaknesses, considering proportionality, the constituency link, and simplicity, highlighting the ongoing debate about which system best reflects voter wishes and delivers stable governance.

Key Takeaways:

• FPTP is used for UK Parliament elections and local elections in England and Wales. Mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner elections also reverted to FPTP from May 2023, though proposed legislation aims to reinstate Supplementary Vote.
• The Single Transferable Vote (STV) system is used for Northern Ireland Assembly and local council elections in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
• The Additional Member System (AMS) is employed for elections to the Scottish Parliament and the London Assembly.
• The Senedd Cymru (Welsh Parliament) will switch from AMS to a closed list proportional system for its elections from May 2026.
• Different systems involve trade-offs between proportionality, constituency link, simplicity, and outcomes/accountability.

Important Definitions and Concepts:

• First-Past-The-Post (FPTP): A system where the candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins, regardless of whether they achieve over 50%.
• Proportionality: The degree to which the number of seats won by a party reflects its share of the votes cast.
• Constituency Link: The connection between elected representatives and a specific geographical area or electorate, allowing for local representation and accountability.

Discussion and Reflection Question: Considering the various strengths and weaknesses discussed, how do you think different electoral systems impact voter engagement and trust in the democratic process in the UK?

Source:  Voting systems in the UK
Research Briefing
Published Friday, 11 July, 2025

Transcript

Ivan: 0:00

Hello and welcome again to The Bench Report, concise summaries of debates and briefings from the benches of the UK Parliament. A new topic every episode. You're listening to Amy and Ivan. Today we're looking into something fundamental, but maybe a bit overlooked. The actual voting systems used across the UK. It's surprisingly varied.

Amy: 0:24

It really is. For a long time, especially in Great Britain, it felt like first past the post, FPTP was pretty much it.

Ivan: 0:30

Right. That was the standard. But things have changed quite a bit since, what, 1997? They

Amy: 0:35

have. The whole electoral landscape has become much more diverse. Different systems are used for different elections now.

Ivan: 0:41

So our aim today is just to give you a quick, clear picture of these systems, what they are, where they're used, and maybe what that means for voters.

Amy: 0:48

Exactly. Let's start with the most familiar one. First past the post. Still used for UK Parliament elections.

Ivan: 0:54

And most local ones in England and Wales, isn't it?

Amy: 0:57

That's right. It's straightforward. The candidate with the most votes, even if it's not over 50%, wins the seat. Simple majority, or rather, plurality.

Ivan: 1:05

Simple to understand, definitely.

Amy: 1:07

But then you have other systems designed for different outcomes. Take the single transferable vote. STV.

Ivan: 1:14

Where is that used?

Amy: 1:15

Primarily in Northern Ireland for their assembly and local elections. And interestingly, for local council elections up in Scotland, too.

Ivan: 1:23

And how does that one work? It's preferential.

Amy: 1:25

Yes, exactly. You rank the candidates in order of preference, one, two, three, and so on. The idea is to make the results more proportional to the votes cast.

Ivan: 1:34

So trying to match seats more closely to vote share.

Amy: 1:37

Precisely. Then there's the additional member system or AMS.

Ivan: 1:40

IS for the Scottish Parliament and the London Assembly. That's a hybrid, isn't it?

Amy: 1:44

It is. It mixes things up. You get two votes, one for a local constituency candidate, usually decided by FPTP, and a second vote for a regional party list. Those list seats are then allocated to parties to sort of top up their representation and make the overall result more proportional across the region. A

Ivan: 2:02

bit of both worlds then. Constituency link and proportionality.

Amy: 2:06

That's the goal. We also see the alternative vote, AV, popping up in some very specific places.

Ivan: 2:11

Like where? It's... It's not common, is it?

Amy: 2:14

No, quite niche. Think elections for hereditary peers staying in the House of Lords or the Scottish Crofting Commission. Again, it's preferential ranking. But the counting continues until one candidate gets over 50 percent of the vote.

Ivan: 2:28

Right. Transferring votes until someone hits that majority threshold.

Amy: 2:31

And looking ahead, Wales is changing things, too. From May 2026, Sen Simru elections will use a closed proportional list system.

Ivan: 2:41

Closed list. So you just vote for for the party.

Amy: 2:43

Essentially, yes. Yeah. Voters choose a party. The party has already decided the order of candidates on its list and seats are allocated based on the party's share of the vote.

Ivan: 2:51

Really shows these systems aren't set in stone. There seems to be constant tinkering.

Amy: 2:55

Absolutely. Look at supplementary voting, SV.

Ivan: 2:58

That was used for mayors and police and crime commissioners, wasn't it? But it got a change recently.

Amy: 3:02

It did. The Elections Act 2022 switched those elections to FPTP from May 2023. But now, well, now there's already talk of changing back.

Ivan: 3:11

Back to SV. Why the the potential U-turn.

Amy: 3:14

Well, the argument being put forward in a new bill relates to these single person executive roles like mayors. Under FBTP, some winners got elected on quite low vote shares, maybe 25 percent, up to about 42 percent in recent examples.

Ivan: 3:27

Not exactly a commanding mandate from the whole electorate.

Amy: 3:30

That's the concern. SV, where you mark a first and second preference, is designed so that if no one gets 50 percent first time, second preferences are counted. The idea is the winner then has a broader base of support, arguably a stronger mandate.

Ivan: 3:45

Which might be seen as important for someone holding significant individual power.

Amy: 3:50

That seems to be the reasoning behind revisiting it. It highlights that choosing a system involves real trade-offs. There's no single perfect answer.

Ivan: 3:57

So what are the main tensions here? What are policymakers trying to balance?

Amy: 4:01

I'd say there are two big ones. First, proportionality versus the constituency link.

Ivan: 4:06

Okay, explain that a bit more.

Amy: 4:07

Well, FPTP gives you a very clear link. One MP represents one specific geographic area. People often like knowing who their MP is.

Ivan: 4:15

Right, that direct connection.

Amy: 4:16

But as we said, FPTP often means the number of seats a party gets doesn't match its national vote share very well. It's less proportional. Systems like STV aim for better proportionality.

Ivan: 4:27

But potentially weaken that direct local link.

Amy: 4:29

Potentially, yes, because STV usually uses larger constituencies with multiple representatives. Though studies suggest STV representatives can still build strong local ties, it's just structured differently.

Ivan: 4:41

Okay, so proportionality versus constituency link. What's the second big tension?

Amy: 4:45

It's about simplicity versus voter choice and accountability. FTTP is dead simple for the voter. Put one X, easy. But it limits choice. Systems like STV with ranking offer much more nuanced choice. You can express support for multiple candidates or parties.

Ivan: 5:03

But the counting sounds more complex.

Amy: 5:05

It is more complex to count, definitely. And having different systems running side by side for different elections can sometimes confuse voters, maybe leading to more spoiled ballots.

Ivan: 5:13

I can see that. Marking one box here, ranking candidates there.

Amy: 5:17

Exactly. And then there's the outcome. FPTP often produces versus single-party governments, which tend to be quite stable, proportional systems are more likely to result in coalitions.

Ivan: 5:27

Which some see as more representative, but others might argue makes accountability a bit fuzzier? Harder to know who's responsible for what?

Amy: 5:34

That's the debate. Clear accountability with potentially less representation versus broader representation with potentially less clear lines of accountability in a coalition. It's a fundamental balancing act.

Ivan: 5:45

Given the constant evolution and the inherent tradeoffs in electoral systems, what does the Take care.