How would Britain fare under proportional representation? Check your local results

LONDON, 1 OCTOBER 2026 —

A new study released on 30 September 2026 by the UK research group More in Common, commissioned by the Guardian, shows that a shift from the current first‑past‑the‑post (FPTP) system to any of three proportional representation (PR) models would dramatically alter the composition of the House of Commons. Under the present system, Labour could secure 250 of the 650 seats with only 26 % of the vote, leaving it short of a majority.

The modelling indicates that under PR, no single party would achieve a majority, and the balance of power would tilt toward a coalition or minority government.

The analysis was prompted by a recent announcement from Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who said he would set up a national commission on electoral reform. The commission has already received backing from more than 100 Labour MPs and from the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, the Scottish National Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymru.

Public support for reform has risen in recent years, and the research suggests that a PR system would produce a parliament that more closely mirrors the electorate’s preferences, reducing the need for tactical voting and making it harder for one party to win outright.

More in Common modelled three PR options for the Guardian: a regional party‑list system, a single‑transferable‑vote (STV) system and an additional‑member system (AMS). In all three scenarios, the projected seat shares for Labour fall to between 26 % and 29 % of the 650 seats, compared with 39 % under FPTP. The party would need the support of the Liberal Democrats and the SNP to form a majority.

The Greens, who would win only three seats under FPTP, would gain more than 50 seats under each PR model, representing roughly 9 % of the House. The far‑right Reform Britain party would rise from one seat to over 30 seats under PR, compared with a single seat under FPTP.

Charlie Buckley, a senior research associate at More in Common, explained that the current system favours Labour because it is the only party close to the 30 % vote threshold needed for a majority. “With Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party having lost some momentum and Andy Burnham being – for now – a more popular prime minister, it’s Labour who would reap the benefits from our current electoral system,” Buckley said.

“Despite only being four points ahead of the Tories, our model shows Labour winning double the number of seats under first past the post, while a proportional system would give us a parliament which better reflects the close three‑horse race we now have between Labour, Reform and the Conservatives.”

Burnham, in a conference speech, warned that Labour should not “open the door” to a “divisive government” that could win power on “less than 30 % of the vote.” He added that the next election would be contested with a manifesto commitment to change the electoral system so that “everyone’s vote counts and everyone’s voice is heard.”

The study also examined regional variations. In London, Labour is projected to win 69 % of the seats under FPTP, but that share would fall to 37 % under the party‑list system and 42 % under AMS. Reform and the Greens would benefit most in the capital, with Reform winning one seat and the Greens none under FPTP, but together winning 18 seats – nearly a quarter of London’s seats – under the party‑list model.

In the east of England, Reform would win 43 % of the seats under FPTP but would fall to 29 % under both the party‑list and AMS systems.

The research is based on an average of the last ten national polls, which show Labour at 26 %, Reform at 23 % and the Conservatives at 20 %. The Greens and the Liberal Democrats each poll at 10 %. The close clustering of the three largest parties means that small shifts in vote share can produce large swings in seat allocation under FPTP, a phenomenon that the PR models would dampen.

The findings echo a 2024 report from the Electoral Reform Society, which modelled the 2024 vote under different systems. That report concluded that only FPTP would give Labour a majority, while all PR systems would produce a hung parliament. The Guardian article notes that the 2011 referendum on the alternative vote (AV) was decisively rejected, illustrating the difficulty of gaining public support for electoral reform.

Experts warn that any future move to PR would likely face a referendum, given its constitutional significance and the precedent set by the AV vote.

The study’s implications extend beyond the UK. Malaysia’s own electoral system, which combines single‑member constituencies with a proportional component for the Dewan Rakyat, has been the subject of debate for years. The UK’s experience with PR models could inform discussions about potential reforms in Malaysia, particularly as the country’s political landscape becomes increasingly fragmented.

Regional parties in Malaysia, such as the Sabah Heritage Party and the Sarawak United Peoples’ Party, might find a PR system more conducive to securing representation proportional to their vote shares.

In the UK, the next general election is scheduled for 2027. The commission on electoral reform, chaired by Burnham, is expected to produce a report by the end of 2027. The report will likely outline the feasibility of implementing one of the PR models and the political and constitutional steps required.

Until then, the current FPTP system remains in place, and the House of Commons will continue to be shaped by the dynamics of a plurality voting system that can produce a majority for a party with a relatively small share of the national vote.