Wales is overhauling its democracy – here’s what’s changing

Stephen Clear, Lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law, and Public Procurement, Bangor University
Next May’s Senedd (Welsh parliament) election won’t just be another trip to the polls. It will mark a major change in how Welsh democracy works. The number of elected members is increasing from 60 to 96, and the voting system is being overhauled. These changes have now passed into law.
But what exactly is changing – and why?
When the then assembly was first established in 1999, it had limited powers and just 60 members. Much has changed since then and it now has increased responsibility including primary law-making powers over matters such as health, education, environment, transport and economic development.
The Wales Act 2014 also bestowed a number of new financial powers on the now Senedd, including taxation and borrowing powers. But its size has stayed the same.
This led to concerns about capacity and effectiveness. In 2017, an independent expert panel on electoral reform concluded that the Senedd was no longer fit for purpose. It warned that 60 members simply weren’t enough to scrutinise the Welsh government, pass legislation and respond to constituents. A bigger chamber, it argued, would improve both the quality of lawmaking and democratic accountability.
Wales also has fewer elected politicians per person than any other UK nation. Scotland has 129 MSPs, while Northern Ireland has 90 MLAs. Even with next year’s changes, Wales will still have fewer elected members per citizen compared with Northern Ireland.

It’s a similar picture when Wales is compared with other small European nations.

More Senedd members could ease workloads, improve local representation and importantly, may encourage a more diverse pool of people to stand for office.
How is the voting system changing?
Alongside expansion will be a change in how Senedd members are elected.
Since its inception, Wales has used the “additional member system”, which is a mix of first-past-the-post for constituency seats and proportional representation for regional ones.
From 2026, that system will be replaced by a closed list proportional system, using the D’Hondt method. It’s a system which is designed to be fairer, ensuring that the proportion of seats a party wins more closely reflects the votes they get. But it also means voters will have less say over which individuals get elected.
Wales will be divided into 16 constituencies, each electing six MSs. Instead of voting for a single candidate, voters will choose one party or independent candidate.
Parties will submit a list of up to eight candidates per constituency. Seats will then be allocated based on the overall share of the vote each party gets, with candidates elected in the order they appear on their party’s list.
For example, if a party wins a percentage share of the vote equating to three seats, the top three people on their party list will be elected. The calculation for this is defined by the D’Hondt formula. The decision to adopt this method in Wales was one of the recommendations of the special purpose committee on Senedd reform in 2022.
Several countries across Europe use this system for their elections, including Spain and Portugal. In countries with small constituency sizes, D’Hondt has sometimes favoured larger parties and made it harder for smaller parties to gain ground. That’s something observers in Wales will be watching closely.
An alternative method, Sainte-Laguë, used in Sweden and Latvia, is often seen as more balanced in its treatment of small and medium-sized parties, potentially leading to more consensual politics. But it too has its downsides. In countries which have many smaller parties, it can lead to fragmented parliaments and make decision-making more difficult.
In sum, no system is perfect. But D’Hondt was chosen for its balance between proportionality, simplicity and practicality.

Could this confuse voters?
One concern is the growing differences between electoral systems across the UK, and even within Wales itself.
At the UK level, first-past-the-post (FPTP) is the method used for Westminster elections. Meanwhile, some Welsh councils are experimenting with the single transferable vote method, which lets voters rank candidates in order of preference.
So, some people in Wales could find themselves navigating three different voting systems for three different elections. Obviously, this raises the risk of confusion. Voters who are used to one vote and the “winner takes all” nature of FPTP may be confused by how seats are allocated in Wales come 2026.
With numerous different systems, the risk is that people do not fully understand how their vote translates into representation. In turn this risks undermining confidence and reducing voter turnout.
Voters will need clear, accessible information on how their vote works – and why it matters. But this is particularly challenging when UK-wide media often defaults to FPTP-centric language and framing surrounding debates, which can shape public expectations. News about Wales often barely registers beyond its borders, while news about politics in Wales barely registers within.
Electoral reform often prompts broader conversations. As Welsh voters adjust to the new proportional system, some may begin to question Westminster’s FPTP model, especially if the Senedd better reflects the diversity of votes cast. FPTP is frequently criticised for producing “wasted votes” and encouraging tactical voting, particularly in safe seats.
Under a more proportional system, tactical voting becomes less necessary, which has the potential to shift voter habits in Wales.
If the 2026 reform leads to a more representative and effective Senedd, it may not only reshape Welsh democracy, but reignite debates about electoral reform across the UK.
This article was first published on The Conversation
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
My concern is that the new “super constituencies” will sever the link between voters and their AM’s. It will also formalise the treatment of Wales as a subsidiary of London based political parties and the supremacy of Westminster. Whilst candidate selection processes vary between parties, we have seen how Labour disrespect their Welsh membership by parachuting in non-Welsh candidates to safe seats at the last Westminster election. There is no reason to think this is changing – and there have now been concerns raised about manipulation of Plaid’s selection processes. I want to have an AM who knows Wales, and… Read more »
I believe that multi-member constituencies have several advantages over single member ones. I accept that single member constituencies are better for the elected representatives. They know that they represent every elector in the constituency, irrespective of whether or how they voted. In a multi-member constituency the representative will not know which electors make up the portion of voters that elected them. Also, being smaller, a single member constituency is easier to represent than a multi-member one. (My wife was a councillor in a two-member electoral division. Helping her with leaflet delivery and canvassing was certainly a lot easier than it… Read more »
96 members is nothing but a money wasting disgrace. They will achieve as little with 96 as they have with 60. We have a dearth of political talent in Wales and this will simply exacerbate it. Shameful.
I’d like to think we could manage to find 96 capable people out of a population of over three million! One benefit of a larger Senedd should be a wider pool from which to appoint the cabinet. Currently a ruling party may have as few as 30 seats, which is not ideal when you’re trying to recruit 14 ministers to head up critical things like Health and Economy which need a high level of expertise. The enlarged Senate will give the government a wider pool of skills and experience to appoint its cabinet from, with a minimum of 48 people… Read more »
I’ve been against monster, PR constituencies from the start, not least because candidates will be party hacks: the evidence on nominations, dodgy dealings aside, has already been proved by Plaid Cymru.
However, can the following be clarified? I assume that the voter has six votes and uses one to six in order of preference?
How is the “price” of seats fixed – this is unclear from the article.
No, the voter has one vote, which will generally be for one party list. The order of the list is preselected by the party.
Perhaps my question was unclear. What I meant was, is it the case that each voter votes 1, 2t o 6 against each party, For example put number one against Plaid Cymru, put number two against Labour, put number three against Green etc in order of personal preference.
And how is the “price” fixed?.
Can the author of the article respond?
Unfortunately not. One vote for one party and that’s it. A complete screw up. Incompetent party hacks over decent candidates and we can’t choose.
I agree (and with Chris Hale). It is impossible to see how the closed list system will improve local representation. The new Senedd is clearly going to be full of incumbents and party hacks. It has also left the door wide open for Farage. Both Plaid and Labour will rue the day they agreed to this.
Look at the state of that Senedd building in the photo. It reminds me of old rugby/football terraces or somewhere where livestock auctions take place. Whoever designed that place and whoever approved it needs to go back to architects’ college. It’s a disgrace compared to Northern Ireland’s and Scotland’s.
We need to get some protests organised to prevent the number of AMs increasing to 96 The Senedd, after all, is just a talking shop and nothing more!!
Wales representation at that non-“talking shop” known as Westminster was reduced by 20% last year so in fairness an increase of 20% in the Senedd seems justifed. But 60 plus 20% only adds up to 72, not 96. If you want to organize protests against 96, are you willing to settle for 72?
No.
Do you realise that Brexit meant that the size of the UK parliament increased by 50MPs since they cancelled a reduction that was promised in 2010 and legislated for in 2011. No one was concerned about that increase. (See link)
What is more scandalous is that Westminster have created over 300 devolved politicians, yet they have not removed a single MP from the Commons.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/government-ditches-plan-to-cut-number-of-mps-from-650-to-600-because-brexit-will-increase-their-workload
The Closed List voting system for future Senedd elections is rightly criticised because it requires voters to pick a party list without having any say over which candidates get elected. However, closed lists are not a new idea for Senedd elections; the Regional MSs were elected from closed lists. Indeed, if you think about it you will realise that all the MSs were elected from closed lists. This is because First Past the Post (FPTP), used to elect the Constituency MSs, is effectively a Closed List system where each party puts forward a list of one candidate; voters who have… Read more »
Sounds good, lets have a stronger Senedd that can get things done, I prefer the transferable vote but this method has to be better than the ridiculous FPTP