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.

See The Difference In Action

Same 6 voters, same candidates, dramatically different results.

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: Proportional Approval 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.

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.

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.