Proportional Commons

Proportional recount of a Commons vote.

Well, yes and no 👇

Proportional recount of recent Commons vote.

The opposition amendment was selected instead, as you know. The proportional recount shows that a majority supported it - so the bill should have failed.

But seats don't match votes so... 🤷‍♂️👇

Yes. Recounts only consider the total popular vote for each party, using this to weight the MPs they managed to elect. So marginality makes no difference.

That is close to what the recount method does. Every vote is counted, and divided between the MPs elected.

The FAQ has more details: tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

There were two divisions in the debate. Both would have changed result, if seats matched votes:

Recent Commons bills that should have failed (Where MPs voting “No” at 2nd/3rd reading represented more people)

Courts and Tribunals Bill - Parliamentary Bills - UK Parliament Current version of Courts and Tribunals Bill with latest news, sponsors, and progress through Houses

A Bill to Make provision in relation to criminal courts in England and Wales; about the leadership of tribunals; to amend section 1 of the Children Act 1989 to remove the presumption relating to the involvement of parents in the life of a child; and connected purposes

bills.parliament.uk/bills/4083

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-03-10: Courts and Tribunals Bill: Second Reading The 301 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 7,151,932 voters. The 201 MPs voting 'No' represented 14,361,426 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

2026-03-10: Courts and Tribunals Bill: Second Reading

The 301 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 7,151,932 voters.
The 201 MPs voting 'No' represented 14,361,426 voters.

No majority = 7,209,494

But result was Aye because seats don't match votes.
See ALT text and 🧵

Mrs Kemi Badenoch Nick Timothy Rebecca Harris Dr Kieran Mullan Mike Wood That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Courts and Tribunals Bill because trial by jury is a fundamental part of the United Kingdom’s constitution and democracy; it is wrong to remove defendants’ right to elect for trial in the Crown Court for all triable either-way offences; extending magistrates courts’ sentencing powers, and restricting the right to appeal against sentences and convictions in the magistrates courts, compounds the fundamental injustice at the heart of the Bill; reducing public participation in the justice system will undermine confidence in it; eroding the right to trial by jury will not make a meaningful impact, if any, on the backlog of court cases; and it calls on the Government to instead tackle the court backlog by improving case management and encouraging earlier pleas, increasing sitting days in the Crown Court, and increasing the hours per day that courts are able to sit by improving the use of technology and the efficiency of prisoner transport.

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-03-10: Courts and Tribunals Bill: Reasoned Amendment to 2nd Reading The 202 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 14,484,955 voters. The 308 MPs voting 'No' represented 7,318,256 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

2026-03-10: Courts and Tribunals Bill: Reasoned Amendment to 2nd Reading

The 202 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 14,484,955 voters.
The 308 MPs voting 'No' represented 7,318,256 voters.

Aye majority = 7,166,699

But result was No because seats don't match votes.
See ALT text and 🧵

Six reasoned amendments laid against this at 2nd reading today. That's... a lot 😯

Yes, this was my concern too. If we try to arrange the system to achieve some end (beyond accurate representation) you create pressure for voters and parties to behave in particular ways. So ultimately, accurate representation, PR, has to be the goal 🤷‍♂️

Not forgetting @makevotesmatter.bsky.social 🙂

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

There were eight divisions in the debate, all but two of which would have changed result, if seats matched votes.

After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause— “Prohibition of smartphones during the school day (1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, all schools in England must have a policy that prohibits the use and possession of smartphones by pupils during the school day. (2) Any policy implemented under subsection (1)— (a) may provide for exemptions from the policy, or for an alternative policy, for sixth form students, in so far as such exemptions or alternative policies do not negatively impact upon the wider policy, (b) may provide for exemptions for medical devices, (c) is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate, and (d) may, where implemented by a boarding school or residential school, include appropriate guidance for the use of certain devices during other periods in which their pupils are on school premises, subject to such policies safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in accordance with relevant national standards. (3) For the purposes of this section— “smartphone” means a mobile telephone that is able to connect to the internet and whose main purpose is not the support of learning or study; “the school day” includes all time between the start of the first lesson period and the end of the final lesson period.”

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-03-09: Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: to disagree with LA 106 The 295 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 7,056,111 voters. The 174 MPs voting 'No' represented 11,232,453 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

2026-03-09: Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: to disagree with LA 106

The 295 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 7,056,111 voters.
The 174 MPs voting 'No' represented 11,232,453 voters.

No majority = 4,176,342

But result was Aye because seats don't match votes.
See ALT text and 🧵

See publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbi...

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-03-09: Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: to disagree with LA 102 The 306 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 8,796,743 voters. The 159 MPs voting 'No' represented 9,130,993 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

2026-03-09: Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: to disagree with LA 102

The 306 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 8,796,743 voters.
The 159 MPs voting 'No' represented 9,130,993 voters.

No majority = 334,250

But result was Aye because seats don't match votes.
See ALT text and 🧵

Clause 30, page 51, line 23, at end insert— “(c) conducting or has ever initiated proceedings under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (care and supervision), (d) providing services to the child or their family under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (provision of services for children in need, their families, and others), or has ever conducted enquiries or has ever taken action under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (local authority’s duty to investigate).”

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-03-09: Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: to disagree with LA 44 The 303 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 8,629,518 voters. The 107 MPs voting 'No' represented 6,648,465 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

2026-03-09: Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: to disagree with LA 44

The 303 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 8,629,518 voters.
The 107 MPs voting 'No' represented 6,648,465 voters.

Aye majority = 1,981,053

See ALT text and 🧵

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0383/240383.pdf#amnd_HoL1102

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-03-09: Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: to disagree with LA 41 The 307 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 8,724,560 voters. The 167 MPs voting 'No' represented 9,579,456 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

2026-03-09: Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: to disagree with LA 41

The 307 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 8,724,560 voters.
The 167 MPs voting 'No' represented 9,579,456 voters.

No majority = 854,896

But result was Aye because seats don't match votes.
See ALT text and 🧵

After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Action to promote the wellbeing of children in relation to social media"

See publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbi...

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-03-09: Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: to disagree with LA 38 The 300 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 7,465,721 voters. The 170 MPs voting 'No' represented 9,233,608 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

2026-03-09: Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: to disagree with LA 38

The 300 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 7,465,721 voters.
The 170 MPs voting 'No' represented 9,233,608 voters.

No majority = 1,767,887

But result was Aye because seats don't match votes.
See ALT text and 🧵

After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Action to prohibit the provision of VPN services to children in the United Kingdom"

See publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbi...

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-03-09: Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: to disagree with LA 37 The 315 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 9,219,193 voters. The 103 MPs voting 'No' represented 5,959,101 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

2026-03-09: Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: to disagree with LA 37

The 315 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 9,219,193 voters.
The 103 MPs voting 'No' represented 5,959,101 voters.

Aye majority = 3,260,092

See ALT text and 🧵

After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause— “Promoting contact between siblings who are not living together In paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 1 to the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/959) (care plans), for the words from “for” to “together” substitute “whom they are not living with”.”

This chart is a proportional recount of a vote in the House of Commons. The top two bars show the number of MPs from each party who voted Aye or No in the division. The bottom two bars show the number of voters those MPs represent. For example, if a party won two million votes in the general election and half of that party's MPs voted in the division, that would represent one million voters. 2026-03-09: Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: to disagree with LA 17 The 303 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 7,246,196 voters. The 177 MPs voting 'No' represented 12,713,504 voters. In many cases, more voters are represented by the MPs on the losing side. This is because seats don't match votes with First Past the Post (FPTP). Recounts are shown in terms of ideal MPs who all represent the same number of people. The method is not a simulation of a PR elected Commons. It is intended to highlight the distortion of FPTP. For more details, see the FAQ: https://tinyurl.com/4hxyc8e7

2026-03-09: Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill: to disagree with LA 17

The 303 MPs voting 'Aye' represented 7,246,196 voters.
The 177 MPs voting 'No' represented 12,713,504 voters.

No majority = 5,467,308

But result was Aye because seats don't match votes.
See ALT text and 🧵

After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause— “Adoption and special guardianship support fund review (1) Within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the level of funding available per child from the adoption and special guardianship support fund. (2) The review must produce recommendations regarding any steps necessary to increase the funds available per child. (3) The review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”