The UK's "choose-one" First-Past-the-Post system guarantees a two-party dominance, forcing voters into tactical decisions rather than allowing them to vote for who they truly support.
The simplest, most effective solution is to let people vote for as many candidates as they approve of. This is Approval Voting.
This isn't a radical idea. It's a simple change that would empower voters and lead to a more representative government. For the Labour Party, a party of progress and reform, this is a historic opportunity to fix our broken political system.
For a party that wants to deliver a decade of national renewal, electoral reform is not just an option, it's a necessity.
CURRENT BALLOT
VOTE FOR ONE
APPROVAL BALLOT
VOTE FOR
ALL YOU APPROVE OF
Single-Winner Elections: A Clear Mandate for Mayors
For single-winner elections, like those for directly elected mayors, Approval Voting is the ideal system. It ensures the winner has the broadest possible support from the electorate. Unlike FPTP, where a candidate can win with a small plurality of the vote, Approval Voting elects the candidate who is approved of by the most voters. This leads to winners with a stronger mandate and reduces the "spoiler effect," where voters are afraid to vote for their true favorite for fear of helping their least favorite candidate win.
Parliamentary Elections: Fair Share Voting
For parliamentary elections, we can use Proportional Approval Voting to achieve a proportionally representative Parliament. This system combines the simplicity of Approval Voting with the fairness of Proportional Representation. Voters can vote for as many candidates as they approve of, and the results are used to elect a proportional slate of representatives. This system ensures that all votes matter and that Parliament accurately reflects the diversity of political opinion in the country.
How Fair Share Voting Works
🗳️ The Ballot
Under Fair Share Voting, you can approve as many parties as you like:
The Ballot
Approve ANY parties you'd be happy to see in Parliament:
✓ You can approve multiple parties!
📊 How Seats Are Allocated
The system uses a "Fair Share" approach to ensure proportional representation:
Count Party Approvals
Count how many voters approved each party nationwide
Apply Threshold
Parties must receive at least 3% of total approvals to qualify for seats
Allocate Seats Using SPAV
Sequential Proportional Approval Voting ensures proportional representation across all 650 seats
Parties Select MPs
Each party chooses which candidates fill their seats, considering popularity, geography, and diversity
📐 How SPAV Works for Parties
Sequential Proportional Approval Voting (SPAV) ensures fair representation:
- First seat goes to the party with the most approvals
- Voters who approved that party have their "voting power" reduced for the next round
- This prevents any group from dominating all the seats
- The process repeats until all 650 seats are filled
- Result: Each party's seat share closely matches their approval share
🏆 A Real Example
Based on current polling (approximate):
| Party | Vote Share | FPTP Seats (projected) | Proportional Seats |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reform UK | 26% | 450+ | 169 |
| Labour | 25% | 100-150 | 162 |
| Conservative | 21% | 50-100 | 136 |
| Liberal Democrats | 15% | 20-40 | 97 |
| Green | 9% | 1-3 | 58 |
✅ Why This Matters
- True Representation: Seat share matches vote share - no more artificial majorities
- Every Vote Counts: No "safe seats" or "wasted votes" - your voice matters everywhere
- Regional Balance: Parties incentivized to select MPs from all parts of the UK
- Diversity: Encourages selection of candidates representing all demographics
- Coalition Building: Parties must work together and find common ground
- Party Accountability: Selection criteria must be transparent and justified
Why the Alternative Vote Failed and What We Can Learn
In 2011, the UK rejected the Alternative Vote (AV). A key reason for its failure was its complexity. Voters struggled to understand the mechanics of ranking candidates and the subsequent rounds of runoffs. This complexity made it easy for opponents to brand it as a "politician's choice" and sow confusion and doubt.
In contrast, Approval Voting is simple and intuitive. You vote for as many candidates as you approve of, and the candidate with the most votes wins. This straightforwardness makes it more transparent and easier for voters to understand, ensuring that the winner has the broadest support. The failure of AV was not a rejection of all electoral reform, but a clear lesson that simplicity and clarity are essential for any successful change.
Why Not Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) or Single Transferable Vote (STV)?
While RCV and STV are improvements over First Past the Post, they have significant drawbacks compared to Approval Voting:
🤔 Complexity
RCV/STV
- Requires ranking many candidates in order
- Complex counting with multiple rounds
- Results can take days to determine
- Difficult to explain to voters
Approval Voting
- Simply approve or don't approve
- Count once, winner immediately clear
- Results available election night
- Anyone can understand in seconds
🗳️ Ballot Errors
RCV/STV
- High spoilage rate (3-5% typical)
- Voters make ranking mistakes
- Exhausted ballots don't count
- Strategic ranking is complex
Approval Voting
- Near-zero spoilage rate
- No way to invalidate ballot
- Every vote always counts
- Strategy is straightforward
📊 Representation
RCV/STV
- Can elect polarizing candidates
- Center squeeze effect
- Doesn't measure broad support
Approval Voting
- Elects consensus candidates
- No center squeeze
- Encourages honest voting
- Measures true support levels
💰 Implementation
RCV/STV
- Expensive new voting machines
- Complex software required
- Extensive voter education needed
- Difficult to audit
Approval Voting
- Works with existing equipment
- Simple software update
- Minimal education required
- Easy to audit and verify
🌍 Real-World Evidence
Burlington, Vermont (2009)
RCV elected the candidate who would have lost head-to-head against either opponent. The system was repealed after this failure.
Australia's Senate
STV ballots are so complex that 95%+ of voters just vote "above the line," letting parties control their preferences.
Fargo, North Dakota (2020)
First US city to adopt Approval Voting. Voter satisfaction increased, and results clearly reflected community consensus.
St. Louis, Missouri (2021)
Adopted Approval Voting with 70% support. First election saw higher turnout and broad coalition building.
🎯 The Bottom Line
While RCV and STV are improvements over FPTP, they introduce unnecessary complexity without delivering better outcomes. Approval Voting achieves all the benefits of electoral reform while remaining simple enough for anyone to understand and use effectively.
Remember: The best voting system is one that voters trust and understand. Approval Voting's simplicity is its greatest strength.
Better Coalitions with Proportional Approval Voting
Under First Past the Post, coalition governments are rare and often unstable. When they do form, they are typically between two parties with very different platforms, leading to policy gridlock and voter dissatisfaction. Proportional Approval Voting, on the other hand, encourages the formation of stable, effective coalitions. Because parties are incentivized to seek broad approval from the electorate, they are more likely to find common ground and work together. This leads to more representative and effective governance, as coalitions are built on shared policy goals rather than political expediency.
Meeting the 'Good Systems Agreement' Principles
Proportional Approval Voting aligns with the key principles of the "Good Systems Agreement" from Make Votes Matter:
- Proportionality: Seats would closely match the votes cast for each party.
- Representation: MPs and governments would better represent the views of the voters.
- Equal votes: The value of individual votes would not be distorted by geography, and tactical voting would be minimised.
- Local links: The system can be designed to maintain links between MPs and specific geographic areas.
- Diversity: It would encourage the election of parliaments that reflect the population.
- Voter choice: Voters would have a wide choice of parties and could express preferences for people rather than just parties.
- Accountability: MPs and governments would be more accountable to the voters.
- Balance of stability and flexibility: It would engender stable, flexible government with the ability to compromise.
- Sustainability and adaptability: The system would be able to respond and adapt to changing needs.
- Voting simplicity: The ballot papers would be easy for voters to understand and use.
Draft Legislative Language
To implement Fair Share Voting (based on Approval Voting, not the Alternative Vote/RCV) in the UK, we propose the following legislative framework:
Key Definitions
Fair Share Voting
A voting system based on Approval Voting where electors may indicate approval for as many candidates as they wish. This is fundamentally different from the Alternative Vote (ranked choice voting) rejected in the 2011 referendum.
For Single-Winner Elections (Mayors, Police Commissioners)
Amendment to Section 9HB of the Local Government Act 2000
"In elections for directly elected mayors:
- Each elector shall be entitled to indicate approval for as many candidates as they wish by marking an 'X' next to each approved candidate's name.
- The candidate receiving approval from the greatest number of electors shall be declared elected.
- In the event of a tie, the returning officer shall decide by lot.
- This system, known as Fair Share Voting for single-winner elections, replaces the supplementary vote system."
For Parliamentary Elections
Proposed Fair Share Voting (Parliamentary Elections) Act
Section 1: Voting Method
"In elections to the House of Commons:
- Elections shall be conducted at-large across the United Kingdom as a single constituency.
- Each registered political party shall submit an ordered list of candidates prior to the election.
- Each elector may indicate approval for one or more political parties registered under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
- Approval is indicated by marking an 'X' in the appropriate box. There is no ranking of preferences.
Section 2: Allocation of Seats
"Seats shall be allocated as follows:
- The total number of approvals received by each party shall be calculated.
- Seats shall be allocated to parties using Sequential Proportional Approval Voting (SPAV):
- (a) The party with the most approvals receives the first seat;
- (b) For each subsequent seat, the voting weight of ballots that approved already-seated parties is reduced proportionally;
- (c) The party with the highest weighted approval score receives the next seat;
- (d) This process continues until all 650 seats are allocated.
- Within each party's allocation:
- (a) Each party shall determine which of its candidates fill the allocated seats;
- (b) Parties are strongly encouraged to consider:
- (i) Geographic representation across all regions of the United Kingdom;
- (ii) Demographic diversity including but not limited to gender, ethnicity, age, and socioeconomic background;
- (c) Parties must publish their selection criteria and process prior to the election;
- (d) The Electoral Commission shall monitor and report on parties' adherence to representation principles.
- A minimum threshold of 3% of total approvals shall be required for a party to receive any seats.
Section 3: Transitional Provisions
"The Fair Share Voting system shall:
- Be implemented at the next general election following Royal Assent;
- Be reviewed by an independent commission after two general elections;
- Not require a referendum, as it is distinct from the Alternative Vote system rejected in 2011.
Key Distinctions from Alternative Vote
Fair Share Voting (Approval-based):
- Voters approve multiple candidates equally
- No ranking or preference ordering
- Simple to understand and count
- Reduces tactical voting
- Proportional in multi-member districts
Alternative Vote (Ranked Choice):
- Voters rank candidates in order
- Complex preference transfers
- Can be confusing and lead to spoiled ballots
- Still enables tactical voting
- Not proportional
Implementation Timeline
Year 1: Legislation passed, Boundary Commission begins constituency review
Year 2: New multi-member constituencies established, public education campaign
Year 3: Pilot elections in local authorities
Year 4: First general election under Fair Share Voting
See The Difference In Action
Same voters, same candidates, dramatically different results.