British politics could use a Swiss-style reformation, says Jonathan Saxty
This summer's general election was perhaps the most anti-democratic in years. First past the post always skews the results - given how, to win, votes most stack up for a victorious party in certain constituencies - but the scale of the imbalance this time around was immense.
On a mere one-third of the vote, Labour won two-thirds of the seats in the House of Commons. Despite support among Labour members, no political party which benefits from an archaic voting system on this scale is going to be incentivised to change it.
For once however the Lib Dems got a fairly even result, having traditionally suffered under first past the post. On just over 12 per cent of the vote, the Liberals won just over 11 per cent of the seats in Parliament.
On the other hand, there was Reform. On over 14 per cent of the vote - the third highest percentage - Nigel Farage's party won a mere 0.8 per cent of the seats in the Commons. Whatever one thinks of Reform UK, that is appallingly anti-democratic and a kick in the teeth to the 4 million people who backed the party (500,000 more, incidentally, than backed the Lib Dems).
There is good reason why most functioning democracies have switched to a form of proportional representation, or least have mixed PR with first past the post. Under a pure winner-takes-all model - like Britain's - voter preference scarcely translate into real representation, disenfranchising millions and making a mockery of any claim to be truly democratic.
But PR aside, the lack of any contract between voters and politicians also calls the entire process into question.
We all know Labour will - as the Tories did before them - abandon, chop and change whatever half-baked and easily-discarded promises it made to the British people. Who knows what justifications will be manufactured after Labour 'opens the books' and decides things are too bad to stick with their original manifesto commitments.
Could this be fixed? Well one country in Europe may have the answer. Switzerland - a nation of 9 million and perhaps the most prosperous country in the Western world - has worked with a system of 'direct democracy' for years.
The Swiss still have MPs, but 50,000 verified signatures gathered can force a law to be put to a referendum, while 100,000 signatures can force a vote on what is known as a "citizens' initiative". The result has been the most unbelievable level of prosperity and, far from leading to anarchy, has made Switzerland perhaps Europe's highest-trust and most orderly society.
The Swiss have strong guardrails in place to prevent laws which violate human rights. Double majorities are also required for constitutional amendments, meaning an amendment must win over a majority of voters and a majority of cantons (states). Therefore, accommodating to Britain's larger population, why couldn't the UK adopt such a model?
Just consider how much greater participation and trust would be in the UK if the country enjoyed both PR and direct democracy. Consider too what terrible policies would have been avoided since 1997 if such systems were in place.
Britain's politics is broken and 2024 proved it beyond any reasonable doubt. That's not to say the Tories deserved to win or that Labour deserved to lose. But the result should not have come about like this. It used to be said that first past the post guaranteed 'strong governments' but the last 14 years clearly dispel that myth.
The UK deserves more than this antiquated model. British politics is long overdue a reformation.
