Following the local elections, Dr Jess Garland, director of policy and research for the Electoral Reform Society, argues that there is no excuse not to change the electoral system.
Last week’s local elections saw a redrawing of the electoral map with significant changes across the 23 councils. Reform UK gained control of 10 councils and the Liberal Democrats control of 3. The Greens meanwhile more than doubled their number of councillors on the councils where elections took place.
The increasingly multi-party nature of elections in the UK was crystal clear with the two largest parties, Labour and the Conservatives winning only a quarter of the seats between them.
As our party system continues to fragment, and voters shift their preferences around a greater number of parties, the problems of using First Past the Post (FPTP) – an electoral system designed for a two-party system – become ever more apparent.
As with many local elections, FPTP delivered some vastly disproportional results. In Staffordshire, Reform UK won 79% of the seats on 41% of the vote, whilst in Shropshire the Liberal Democrats won 57% of the seats on 34% of the vote. Across the elections as a whole we saw vote shares and seats shares mismatched – this time it was Labour who lost out the most with a seat share less than half their vote share.
Similarly in this year’s mayoral contests, FPTP delivered some unusual results with winning mayors coming home with some eye-catching low vote shares.
In the West of England contest, the winning Labour mayor was elected on just under 25% of the vote - the previous contest had seen the winning mayor taking close to 50% of first and second preferences. Similarly in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, the winning Conservative mayor was elected on 28% of the vote where the previous winner in 2021 had reached close to 50% on first and second preferences.
This change is a result of moving to the FPTP system. Previously these mayoral elections took place under the preferential Supplementary Vote (SV) system, which was used for mayoral elections for the first twenty years and allowed voters to express a second preference. This system ensured that the eventual winning mayor had a broader mandate from voters.
When multiple parties are in contention, FPTP elections inevitably produce results in which the winner has a lower vote share, something that is arguably even more problematic for new Combined Authority mayors who have greater powers and responsibilities. Systems that ensure a greater mandate from voters are much better for these types of roles, for voter choice, and for democratic legitimacy.
Whether it’s newly established mayoralties or local councils, First Past the Post is failing to reflect the true political choices of voters. As these results show, FPTP does not favour any particular party – all parties can benefit or be punished by this system – what is constant is that voters miss out. And these failings grow increasingly obvious the more our party system fragments.
These local elections are not outliers but part of a growing trend. At last year’s general election, we saw FPTP return the most disproportional parliament in history, with Labour gaining 63% of the seats on 34% of the vote, while Reform and the Greens received less than 2% of the seats for their combined more than 20% of the vote.
It is clear the current system is becoming increasingly incompatible at all levels it is being used, but it doesn’t have to be this way. For mayors, we should switch back to a fairer preferential voting system, as we had before 2023. The strongest option is the Alternative Vote, which gives votes better choice and makes it likely that the winner will get majority support.
At local government level, we only need look to Scotland and Northern Ireland where they have the Single Transferable Vote (STV) form of PR for councils, which ensures those town halls far better reflect how those areas voted while maintaining a strong link between councillors and their constituents.
Across the nations of the UK, we use fairer voting systems that better reflect the way communities vote. These local elections underscore that there is now no excuse that this should not be the case for every voter in the UK.
