The bill bans the use of the simple‑majority (first‑past‑the‑post) system for UK parliamentary general elections and for local elections in England, and directs the Secretary of State to establish a new proportional representation (PR) system for those contests. It is short on detail about which PR method to adopt; instead it gives the Secretary of State a statutory duty to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to create a system that brings seat shares roughly into line with vote shares.
For practitioners this is consequential: it replaces the basic voting rule that governs how Members of Parliament and many local councillors are elected, vests substantial design authority in central government, and raises immediate questions about timing, the test for what counts as a ‘suitable’ PR system, the scope of regulatory powers, and the interaction with devolved electoral competence.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill disqualifies the simple‑majority system for future parliamentary general elections and for local elections in England, and requires the Secretary of State to devise a proportional system expected to bring seat shares into line with vote shares. It builds a quantitative suitability test into the duty to design the system.
Who It Affects
All UK political parties contesting Westminster elections, English local authorities and their electoral teams, the Electoral Commission, boundary authorities, and the devolved governments to the extent the bill touches reserved/devolved competences. Legal advisers and central government officials will lead the design and implementation work.
Why It Matters
The measure would change the electoral architecture that determines parliamentary majorities and local control; the statutory obligation and regulatory powers give central ministers broad authority to implement wide legislative and administrative changes, making implementation strategy, parliamentary scrutiny and devolution law central practical issues.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill contains three short substantive parts. It prohibits continuing to use the simple‑majority voting method for UK parliamentary general elections and for local elections in England, and it directs the Secretary of State to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to put in place a proportional representation system that would be expected to produce seat allocations roughly reflecting vote shares.
The text does not identify a specific PR model; instead the Secretary of State must choose and implement a system that meets a statutory suitability test.
That suitability test is a quantitative device: a system is ‘suitable’ if, over the past five parliamentary general elections, it would have produced a mean average Gallagher proportionality index below a given threshold. The bill leaves the metric and the retrospective test as the mechanism to judge systems, but does not prescribe how to move from the metric to concrete design decisions (for example, whether to use multi‑member constituencies, regional lists, single transferable vote, or a mixed system).The bill also gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations ‘contingent on the prohibition’ and expressly permits those regulations to amend other enactments.
That creates a route for detailed legal and administrative change without embedding those details in the primary Act. The Act’s commencement and extent clauses create two timing layers: the Act itself comes into force by a statutory commencement clause, and the prohibition against FPTP starts after a specified interval.
The text provides no transitional rules for elections that fall in the implementation window, nor does it describe how to handle constituency boundaries, ballot design, or voter education.Finally, the bill is territorially selective. It targets Westminster elections across the UK but limits local‑government reform to England; the drafting of extent clauses contains a narrow mismatch that will need legal scrutiny.
Taken together, the bill sets an overall direction — end first‑past‑the‑post and require a proportional alternative — but leaves the most consequential choices (system type, detailed rules, and implementation timetable) to central government regulation and subsequent operational decisions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prohibits use of the simple‑majority voting system for parliamentary general elections after the end of the six‑month period beginning on the day the Act is passed.
It also prohibits the simple‑majority system for local elections in England after the same six‑month period.
The statutory suitability test requires that a candidate PR system would have produced a mean Gallagher proportionality index of less than 10 when applied to the past five parliamentary general elections.
The Act itself comes into force at the end of the two‑month period beginning on the day it is passed, creating a gap between commencement and the prohibition’s effective date.
The Secretary of State may make regulations contingent on the prohibition and those regulations may include amendments to other enactments.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Ban FPTP for Westminster and duty to design a PR system
This section bars the simple‑majority voting method for parliamentary general elections after the six‑month lead time and imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to establish a PR system whose seat outcomes would broadly mirror vote shares. Practically, that places the initial onus for system selection, policy choices (district magnitudes, ballot structure, thresholds) and transition planning on the central government rather than Parliament drafting the details into primary legislation.
Ban FPTP for local elections in England and parallel design duty
Section 2 applies the same prohibition and design obligation to local government elections in England. The provision is limited to England in substance but sits alongside an extent clause that reaches England and Wales, which creates an immediate drafting ambiguity about the bill’s geographical reach and could trigger legal questions about competence and legislative intention in relation to Welsh institutions.
Extent, commencement and short title
This section says the Act comes into force two months after it is passed and sets out which parts of the Act extend where: the Westminster provisions extend to all UK nations while the local‑elections provision is expressed to extend to England and Wales. The separated timing (two‑month commencement versus six‑month prohibition) means the Act will be in force before the ban takes effect, but the text does not set transition rules for any election that falls between these dates.
Contingent regulations and power to amend other enactments
Both the Westminster and local sections authorize the Secretary of State to make regulations contingent on the prohibition and explicitly allow those regulations to amend existing enactments. Functionally that is a Henry VIII‑style capability to effect substantive legal change through secondary legislation; it centralises implementation choices but raises questions about the form of parliamentary scrutiny and the scope of delegated powers required to operationalise a new electoral architecture.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Elections across all five countries.
Explore Elections in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Voters whose preferences were previously 'wasted' under first‑past‑the‑post — the bill’s stated aim is to increase vote‑to‑seat alignment, which would make smaller or geographically dispersed parties translate a higher share of votes into representation.
- Smaller and mid‑sized parties that receive substantial vote shares but win few seats under FPTP, because proportional systems generally reduce the seat bonus enjoyed by the largest parties.
- Local electorates in England where council compositions may more closely reflect vote shares, potentially changing coalition dynamics at the local level.
- Policy analysts, electoral reform advocates and professional election designers, who will play a central role in specifying systems and implementation plans if and when the Secretary of State acts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Large parties that currently benefit from FPTP’s seat amplification, which may face reduced majorities and more frequent coalition or minority governments.
- Electoral administrators, returning officers and local authorities in England, which will shoulder significant operational costs for redesigning ballots, education campaigns, IT changes and new counting systems.
- The UK government and Secretary of State, who will need to deliver complex secondary legislation, fund implementation work and defend design choices legally and politically.
- The Boundary Commission and related statutory bodies, which may need to rework constituency or district structures to deliver multi‑member districts or other PR arrangements.
- Devolved administrations and Welsh local bodies, which may face legal and constitutional friction if central regulation touches matters within devolved competence.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between achieving closer alignment of votes and seats — a normative goal many see as fairer representation — and preserving the locality, simplicity and government‑forming clarity that first‑past‑the‑post offers; resolving that requires technical design choices that will advantage some parties and voters and disadvantage others, while concentrating major change authority in the Secretary of State and exposing the reform to devolution and delegated‑powers objections.
The bill sets a destination — proportional representation — but leaves the route almost entirely to the Secretary of State and secondary legislation. That creates a host of practical and legal uncertainties.
The statutory suitability test (a mean Gallagher index threshold applied to the past five general elections) is a blunt instrument: it quantifies proportionality but does not prescribe which trade‑offs (local link, ballot simplicity, district magnitude, threshold levels) ministers must accept to meet the metric. Different PR models will perform differently under the same metric depending on districting and thresholds, so the test will strongly shape design choices even while the bill avoids naming any system.
The scope of regulation‑making power is another flashpoint. Allowing regulations to amend other enactments gives ministers the ability to change electoral law architecture by secondary instrument rather than through primary legislation, which raises Parliamentary scrutiny and delegation questions.
The bill’s territorial drafting and the layering of commencement dates create additional legal touchpoints: the local provision targets England but the extent clause mentions England and Wales, and the Act’s commencement two months after passage precedes the six‑month effective prohibition without transitional rules for elections in that window. Those drafting features are likely to be focal points for legal advice and, potentially, litigation.
Finally, the bill omits funding or operational detail: who pays for IT, ballot redesign, public information, and training is left unspecified, and there are no provisions for transitional ballots, by‑elections, or handling vacancies under the new system.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.