A projection of how the election results would look if we used Additional Member System (AMS), like in Scotland and Wales.
| Party | AMS | FPTP | Seat change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Labour | 236 | 411 | +175 |
| LibDems | 77 | 71 | -6 |
| Green | 42 | 4 | -38 |
| SNP | 18 | 9 | -9 |
| Plaid Cymru | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| Reform | 94 | 5 | -89 |
| Conservative | 157 | 121 | -36 |
| Northern Ireland | 18 | 18 | 0 |
| Other | 4 | 6 | +2 |
I think you’ve got it. Yes.
It’s called multi-member constituencies and we used to do it before 1950 but only in some areas. We even did a small number under STV, but it never became the universal norm. We just divided those constituencies down to single member o es to make everything the same.
What I’m saying is that we moved the wrong way. We should have normalised everything by moving everything to multi-member and retained STV (not the other systems on that page).
The biggest argument against is that in rural areas the size of a single constituency could become very large. For example: would Wales large parts of Wales fall entirely into a handful of constituencies, or the north west of Scotland? On the other hand, it would simplify things in urban areas.