Method page

AMS+: the easiest proportional route from here

AMS+ keeps the mixed-member structure the UK already knows from Scotland and Wales, but replaces the local FPTP ballot with approval voting. That makes it the clearest near-term approval-based route to Westminster proportionality.

Two valid ways to build the list tier

Mixed systems do not all use the regional tier in the same way. Some use it to correct the failed proportionality of the constituency tier. Others simply add a fixed block of proportional seats on top. Both are real, valid design choices.

Compensatory top-up (classic MMP / stronger AMS)

Here the regional seats are used to balance out the disproportionality created by the constituency results. If a party wins fewer constituency seats than its vote share deserves, it gets more list seats. If it wins many constituency seats already, it gets fewer or none.

Best if the goal is chamber-wide proportionality
Closest to German and New Zealand-style MMP logic
The strongest fit for an approval-based “AMS+” if proportionality is the main goal

Bottom line: the approval innovation sits in the local ballot. Whether the list tier is fully compensatory or only partly balancing is a separate design choice.

The Additional Member System Plus (AMS+)

This is the most straightforward proportional version of the idea. Start with the Additional Member System already used in Scotland and Wales, then swap out the local “pick one” ballot for approval voting.

You keep local MPs. You keep proportional top-up seats. But the constituency vote stops forcing people into the old FPTP squeeze.

Best fit in UK reform politics

If Britain wanted proportionality without a giant leap

If Westminster reformers want a proposal that can speak to Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green, and softer constitutional audiences at the same time, AMS+ is the clearest approval-based fit. It reuses a structure voters in Scotland and Wales already know and changes the least while still delivering PR.

What stays familiar

Single-member constituencies, regional top-up seats, and an assembly-wide proportional outcome.

What changes

The local vote becomes “approve all acceptable candidates,” removing the FPTP squeeze from the constituency tier.

Why it matters politically

It offers a Westminster PR package that feels evolutionary rather than institutionally alien.

How You Vote

Why AMS+?

🗳️ Greater Expression

Approve multiple candidates you trust to represent your constituency, rather than being forced into a single choice.

🎯 No Spoiler Effect

Support your favorite candidates without worrying about splitting the vote or letting your least-preferred candidate win.

⚖️ Proportional Results

The party list ensures overall proportional representation while local seats reflect broad community support.

🤝 Encourages Consensus

Candidates who appeal across different groups are rewarded, promoting coalition-building and moderation.

📊 Better Accountability

Dual accountability through both local approval and party proportionality creates stronger democratic incentives.

🔄 Familiar Structure

Builds on the proven AMS system already used in Scotland and Wales with minimal disruption.

How It Works

Cast Your Votes

Approve multiple constituency candidates and select one party for the regional list

Count Approvals

The constituency candidate with the most approvals wins the local seat

Allocate List Seats

Regional list seats are distributed proportionally based on party vote share

Balanced Representation

Final assembly reflects both local approval and proportional party support

Transition and Implementation

Stage 1: Westminster-ready PR model

Keep existing constituencies for the local tier, then add proportional regional correction seats using a standard allocation rule. This is institutionally close to systems the UK already administers.

Stage 2: Improve list design

Regional lists can stay simple at first, then become more voter-shaped over time through open lists or approval within party lists if reform coalitions want a second step.

Counting rule

Use a fair top-up formula such as Sainte-Lague rather than defaulting to D'Hondt, because the UK is a multi-party system where small differences in divisor choice can matter.

The Foundation: AMS in Scotland and Wales

AMS isn't theoretical. It's been successfully used for elections in Scotland and Wales since 1999, proving it works in practice.

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Scotland

Scottish Parliament elections use AMS with 129 seats: 73 from constituencies and 56 from regional lists. Voters are familiar with the two-vote system.

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Wales

Welsh Senedd elections use the same AMS system with 60 seats: 40 from constituencies and 20 from regional lists. It's been delivering proportional representation for over two decades.

✅ Proven Track Record

Over 25 years of successful elections demonstrate AMS works. AMS+ simply improves it by using approval voting for the local vote.

Common Questions

Won't approval voting in constituencies be confusing?

No. The instruction is simple: "Tick all candidates you'd be happy with." The winner is whoever gets the most approvals. Much clearer than ranking candidates.

Won't this take longer to count?

Approval voting is faster to count than ranking systems. You simply add up the ticks for each candidate—no complex transfers or calculations.

How does approval voting stop tactical voting?

With approval voting, you don't need to worry about "wasting" your vote. You vote honestly for all candidates you support. If your favourite doesn't win, your approval still helps others you chose.

What if I only want to approve one candidate?

That's fine. You can approve as few or as many candidates as you like—even just one. AMS+ gives you choice without forcing you to use it.

What's the Difference Between AMS and MMP?

AMS and MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) are closely related. Both use two votes, usually one for a local candidate and one for a party list. The labels vary by country and by how strongly the top-up tier restores proportionality, but the strategic case for AMS+ is the same: keep the mixed-member structure and improve the local ballot.

How Does AMS+ Compare with STV?

Both are defensible PR systems. STV gives voters more candidate ordering power inside multi-member districts, while AMS+ keeps a clearer single-member local link and a simpler local ballot. The argument for AMS+ is not that STV is illegitimate, but that it is easier to explain, easier to count, and likely easier to assemble into a broad Westminster reform coalition.

🎯 The Bottom Line

AMS+ builds on 25+ years of proven success in Scotland and Wales, but with a crucial improvement: approval voting for constituency seats. If the UK wants a credible near-term route to PR that still preserves familiar institutions, this is the strongest approval-based proposal.

Remember: With AMS+, you're not forced to choose just one candidate—you approve all the candidates you trust.