1832 Bank Run in Britain produced political reform, said Author John T. Hull, employee of Manitoba Wheat Pool

John T. Hull, of the Manitoba Wheat Pool

wrote in 1929:

...Despite the persecution, tho severity of the courts and the numerous imprisonments and transportation, the people joined enthusiastically in the demand for franchise reform and even prepared to resort to arms for it. 

How the Reform Bill of 1832 was ultimately secured in the face of tremendous class opposition, is perhaps worth repeating. Francls. Place, the radical tailor of Charing Cross, did not believe in violence, but it looked, as the fight for the Bill went on, that nothing short of resort to arms would bring success. "The prime minister, the Duke of Wellington, was obdurate.” 

Then one morning London woke to find the walls plastered with huge posters which said "To Stop the Duke, go for gold”.

The result was a run on the banks, and in a week the Bank of England paid out $25,000,000. [Wikipedia article Reform Act 1832 says conversion would make the withdrawals add up to $200M in today's money.]

That was enough; the government capitulated.

“The writing on the wall,” says Francis in his History of the Bank of England, "spoke to those having authority with a power far exceeding the most brilliant oratory.” 

I have often wondered why the people have never repeated that kind of pressure on governments adamant to the appeals of right and justice...."

from John T Hull Reform movements and ideas (1929)

(available at Internet Archives online)

see also Francis, History of the Bank of England, p. 66-69

https://dn790008.ca.archive.org/0/items/historyofbankof02fran/historyofbankof02fran.pdf

(He implies that the bank run was not as organized (so not as disastrous) as it might have been. Still the uncertainty caused some of the bank's shareholders to unload their shares. And then they lost money by buying them back at higher prices once the scare was over.)

========================================

Other methods used to achieve or press for electoral reform

Boycotts

Chartists used extreme measure of boycott by competing in hustings (nominations meetings then withdrawing "to expose the deeply undemocratic nature of the electoral system."

Wiki "Chartism": "Candidates embracing Chartism also stood on numerous occasions in general elections. There were concerted campaigns in the election of 1841 and election of 1847, when O'Connor was elected for Nottingham. O'Connor became the only Chartist to be elected an MP; it was a remarkable victory for the movement.

More commonly, Chartist candidates participated in the open meetings, called hustings, that were the first stage of an election. They frequently won the show of hands at the hustings, but then withdrew from the poll to expose the deeply undemocratic nature of the electoral system."

Protests

Rallies

Longest Ballot campaign - put a noticeable number of names on a ballot to draw attention to need for ER

lobby and convince elected politicians or people with high profile to back ER

Tony McQuail when running for NDP leadership position in 2026 spoke out about need for PR several times in the leadership candidate's debate Feb. 19 on TV.

celebrities

Billy Bragg in 2012 British referendum (I think)

Research -- information as weapon (I wish!)

information is useful but general wisdom is you need a certain situation to arise (crisis, instability, EC. ) to produce change

whether through powers-that-be giving pro-ER radical parties what they demand, or Conservatives bringing in PR as attempt to prevent total Radical take-over.

(either of these antithetical moves are fine with me!)

Some suggest that the threat of rebellion is what drove the change to PR.

labor uprisings and strikes "effectively threatened the entire nation" in Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland.

the strikers explicitly demanded PR, and electoral reform and the adoption of PR was a direct result of these threats. (Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, p. 394)

also radicalization of the Socialist Party led to PR. Right-wing forces saw that Socialists were an electoral threat but also a threat to the existing social order. Socialists' radicalization made an outright Socialist victory more problematic and the right-wing forces saw that FPTP made Socialist victory more likely so adopted PR to prevent such a situation. (OHES, p. 394 citing Ahmed 2013, p. 24)

a large number of PR adoptions were accomplished through multiparty agreement (although not necessarily all-party consensus),

a large number of other cases happened when a new government (or country) is formed.

referendum was used in few cases. just Switzerland 1918 and ???

(referendum with a simple yes or no is a blunt and unfair instrument to determine minority rights -- and electoral reform is a minority rights issue.

=================================================