Our voting system is wrong - we need proportional representation brought in now

Winston Churchill once said that “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”. His words have a particular resonance in the week that Britain has held one of the most momentous elections of modern times. As counting continues, all the signs are Labour’s won a landslide of historic proportions.

Whatever the reservations about Sir Keir Starmer’s prosaic, unimaginative political character or his lack of openness on policy, it cannot be denied that his pulverisation of the Tory opposition has been an astounding achievement. Labour supporters would no doubt see this week’s landslide as an uplifting expression of the people’s will.

Yet, in keeping with the sceptical tone of Churchill’s statement about democracy, Britain’s parliamentary system has two fundamental flaws which undermine its credibility.

The first – a comparatively recent development – is the excessive use of postal votes. Until the start of this century, someone could apply only on the grounds of incapacity or unavoidable absence. Because of tight restrictions, less than 2 per cent of votes were cast this way.

But Tony Blair’s government, keen to boost inner-city turnout, allowed postal voting on demand.

As a result, their use has become far more common – as many as a quarter of all votes cast in this election. Understandably, many value the convenience, but some serious problems cannot be ignored. One is the unreliability of the post, as highlighted by complaints in more than 90 constituencies this year.

Another is that most postal votes are cast long before polling day, so these electors may miss a crucial twist late in the campaign, such as a dire performance in a leadership debate or an explosive controversy.

In 1970, Harold Wilson seemed to be cruising to an easy win, when just three days before polling, a dire set of trade figures appeared to vindicate all Ted Heath’s attacks on Labour’s mishandling of the economy. The mood was transformed and Wilson unexpectedly lost.

An additional worry is that postal voting is far more open to fraud and manipulation than the secret ballot. Ironically, the Government recently introduced ID checks to stamp out abuses at polling stations, yet nothing was done to combat postal ballot-harvesting in homes and communities.

But an even bigger issue are the gross distortions often generated by the first-past-the-post system, which, contrary to its advocates’ claims, neither produces strong governments nor provides a fair representation of the people’s will.

Huge bloated majorities can emerge from comparatively limited popular support, as with Stanley Baldwin’s 1924 Tory landslide. He won 67 per cent of Commons seats with just a 47 per cent share of the national vote.

Similarly, Blair’s Labour finished less than three points ahead of Michael Howard’s Tories in 2005, yet won 157 more seats.

Indecisive outcomes are more frequent than is often supposed. Since 1900, there have been at least 43 years of hung parliaments, minority governments or coalitions, many sustained in office by the kind of shady deals that the proportional representation system is always accused of promoting.

What makes this record even worse is the glaring anomalies. In 1951, Labour gained significantly more votes than Churchill’s Tories, but won fewer seats.

First-past-the-post is also brutally harsh on smaller parties – taking its most outrageous effect in 1983, when the newly created SDP/Liberal Alliance triumphed in only 23 seats, far behind Labour’s total of 209, after both parties received roughly the same share of the vote.

Nor have the hauls of votes for Reform UK and UKIP over the last decade been reflected in seats.

Britain pioneered the noble ideal of parliamentary democracy. If we are to maintain the highest standards in justice, fairness and integrity, change is needed.