Proportional Representation prevents wasted votes

The argument

Proportional Representation would reduce the number of votes wasted nationally, and therefore result in a parliament which more accurately reflects the political will of the people. The current system of first-past-the-post means that in many areas known as 'safe seats' (ie they are a Conservative of Labour stronghold), many votes go wasted. They are wasted as many voters have little chance of having their first choice political party elected if it does not correspond to the traditional political party in that area. This is often a large problem for smaller parties such as the Greens or Liberal Democrats, who do not have 'safe seats' in the same way as the main two parties, and therefore many of their voters' votes are often viewed as 'wasted'. This can be seen most clearly in data from the recent 2019 UK election. It took 0ver 800,000 votes to elect one Green MP, but only 38,000 votes to elect one Conservative MP. The Brexit Party gained 600,000 votes but not one single MP. This phenomenon of 'wasted votes' is also continually tied to voter apathy. Many voters think there is no point in bothering to vote if they live in a safe seat, and therefore don't even turn up to the polls. Proportional Representation could see a reduction in voter apathy as voters would now be incentivized to vote knowing that their vote would go directly to their first choice party gaining representation in parliament.

Context

Proportional Representation is a voting system whereby the number of popular votes determines the number of seats held by a political party in parliament. Currently, the UK uses the first-past-the-post system of voting, where voters must vote for one MP in their area. This can result in people strategically voting not for their favourite candidate, but for the candidate they believe is most likely to win in their area. In 2011, the UK held a referendum on the 'Alternative Vote.' Although it was defeated by nearly 68%, it stoked a discussion about what kind of electoral system was best for the United Kingdom. One of the solutions repeatedly proposed is a form of Proportional Representation.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Opponents reply that PR trades the "wasted vote" problem for other costs. It tends to weaken the single-member constituency link, and it can hand small parties disproportionate leverage as kingmakers in coalition bargaining, so governments are assembled by post-election deals rather than chosen directly by voters. They add that the "wasted vote" framing assumes proportionality is the sole measure of a fair system. First-past-the-post defenders prize the local MP–constituency bond and decisive single-party government, values on which PR performs worse, so preventing wasted votes is one consideration weighed against others, not a decisive case.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] "Wasted votes" presupposes proportionality is the measure of fairness; FPTP defenders value the constituency link and decisive government, on which PR scores worse. [Rejecting P2] A more proportional parliament can produce coalitions assembled by post-election bargaining, so votes may translate into representation without translating into the government voters chose.