Why Proportional Representation Matters
The way votes translate into seats can dramatically change how governments operate and whose voices get heard in parliament.
AMS creates stronger parliaments because it rarely produces overall majorities. This means governing parties must negotiate with others to pass budgets and legislation. The SNP, for instance, has had to work with both Greens and Conservatives, ensuring multiple viewpoints influence decisions rather than one party dominating completely.
Under FPTP, smaller parties get squeezed out despite significant public support. The 2019 UK election perfectly illustrates this problem: the Greens won 900,000 votes nationwide but only one seat, whilst the SNP secured 48 seats with just 1.2 million votes because their support was geographically concentrated.
Proportional outcomes make voters feel their choices matter. In 2021, the Conservatives received 24% of Scottish votes and roughly 24% of seats - a fair reflection of public opinion. However, FPTP often forces tactical voting, where people don't vote for their preferred candidate but for whoever is most likely to beat their least favourite option.
This tactical element means many votes aren't genuine expressions of preference but strategic calculations, making the system less representative of what people actually want.
Key Point: AMS ensures smaller parties have a voice, whilst FPTP can silence significant portions of the electorate.