Britain Asks: What Is the Purpose of Elections?

Just seven weeks into his tenure at Downing Street, Prime Minister Andy Burnham has stirred controversy over yet another reform of the political system. Nearly 100 Labour MPs are calling for a commission to examine electoral reform and replace the current constituency-based system with proportional representation—an idea with which Burnham has previously expressed sympathy.

Is proportional representation more democratic? If so, why should a party that wins 15 percent of the vote not receive roughly 15 percent of the seats in Parliament?

Because elections are not democracy itself. They are merely one of its mechanisms, alongside the rule of law, freedom of expression, institutional independence, government accountability, the existence of an opposition capable of replacing the government, and established rules and traditions governing the peaceful transfer of power.

This raises a more fundamental question: What is the purpose of elections? Is it to produce a parliament that mathematically mirrors every current trend in public opinion? Or is it to produce a government capable of governing and an opposition capable of holding it to account and replacing it?

The English have an old saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The principle is simple: reform a system when a genuine defect emerges, rather than dismantling it merely because there is a desire for change.

The lesson is not unique to Britain. The most stable political experiences have generally been those that pursued gradual reform and built upon existing institutions rather than tearing them down and rebuilding them from scratch.

No one claims that Britain’s electoral system is perfect. A party can win a substantial share of the popular vote yet secure only a small number of parliamentary seats, while another can obtain a large parliamentary majority without winning a majority of the vote. This is one of the principal arguments advanced by advocates of proportional representation.

Yet the existing system has a practical advantage: voters know who governs, who opposes the government, and who bears responsibility for the decisions being made.

This principle is embodied in the very structure of the House of Commons. The government sits across from an opposition, supported by a “shadow government” that is theoretically and practically preparing to take its place. The system therefore presents voters not only with a government, but also with a recognizable alternative.

Proportional representation rarely gives a single party a governing majority. Coalition negotiations consequently become necessary, giving smaller parties that hold the balance of power an influence that can exceed their electoral weight.

A weak government is a problem for democracy, but a weak opposition can pose an even greater danger. It can create space for populist movements to present themselves as alternatives outside the traditional parliamentary relationship between government and opposition.

Europe has provided numerous examples of the difficulties associated with permanent coalition governments. Italy, in the decades following the Second World War, experienced frequent changes of government, including instances in which smaller parties were able to impose policies on larger coalition partners because the survival of the government depended on their support.

That does not mean coalitions are undemocratic. Britain itself had a coalition government between 2010 and 2015.

The distinction, however, lies between voters choosing a government and voters merely determining the relative size of political parties, leaving their leaders—after the polls have closed—to negotiate over who will govern the country.

Britain’s 2024 general election offered another illustration of the advantages of the current system. Polls closed at 10 p.m. on Thursday. By Friday morning, the Conservative prime minister had resigned and the Labour leader had been invited by the King to form a new government. In less than a day, power had been transferred completely, without weeks of negotiations between parties or bargaining over ministerial portfolios. Before the night was over, the country knew who had won and whom voters would hold accountable at the next election.

The British system also embodies another value that is often lost amid calculations of vote shares and parliamentary seats: accountability.

A majority government is capable of implementing its programme, while voters can subsequently hold it responsible without allowing it to argue that unpopular policies were imposed upon it by a minor coalition partner.

Britain’s constitutional history, moreover, has been shaped to a large extent by gradual reform. The right to vote expanded, institutional powers changed, and the relationship between the monarchy, Parliament, and government evolved over generations. Reform was not primarily an act of rejecting what came before; it was an exercise in building upon it.

The upheavals that swept across the region after 2011 demonstrated that dismantling an existing political order does not necessarily produce a more democratic or stable one. In some cases, democracy deteriorated; in others, the state itself weakened.

This does not mean that stability should be used as an excuse to reject reform. Systems that fail to evolve can become rigid, and what becomes rigid can eventually break. But there is a fundamental difference between evolution on the one hand and dismantling and rebuilding a system whenever a new constitutional theory emerges on the other.

That is why Britain’s debate over proportional representation is about more than a mathematical equation linking votes to seats. Reform is necessary when it addresses a genuine institutional defect, but reform should not become an end in itself.

Before changing an electoral system that has served Britain for generations and facilitated the rapid and peaceful transfer of power, reformers should first answer the simplest question:

What is the purpose of elections?

Is it to ensure that Parliament reflects every shade of public opinion in precisely proportional numbers? Or is it also to produce a government capable of governing and an opposition capable of replacing it?