On May 6, more than 2 million voters will be called to elect their 60 representatives in the Senedd / Welsh Parliament.

The Senedd was established in 1999, together with the Scottish Parliament, and holds extensive powers on key areas of government – including education, health, economic development, public services and some taxes.

For the first time, and thanks to campaigning by groups like ERS Cymru, Welsh elections will see 16-year-olds and over being allowed to cast their votes, along with an estimated 33,000 qualifying foreign nationals, thus expanding the franchise for a more democratic process.

Voting System

The elections will employ the Additional Member System (AMS), which uses a mix of Westminster-like First Past the Post and Party Lists. The same system is used in elections for the Scottish Parliament and the London Assembly.

Voters get two ballot papers. One to elect a local MS for their constituency, and one to decide on the strength of the parties in the Senedd.

40 Members of the Senedd (MS) are elected from the Westminster-style First Past the Post (FPTP) ballot paper to be local MSs. The candidate with most votes is elected for each constituency, even if they get fewer than half the votes.

The remaining 20 MSs (the so-called additional members) are added to top up the amount of local MSs each party won so that their total number of MSs is as close to the share of the vote they won on the second, party ballot paper, as possible.

This means that parties with support spread out across the country can still win representation, even if they do not have enough voters in a single constituency to win one of the local MS seats. The result is a more proportional parliament.

Opinion Polls

According to the latest polls, Labour – which is currently in power – sees a tight race in a number of marginal seats, in what could be the closest devolved election in Welsh history. Conservatives and Plaid Cymru follow up as second and third party respectively.

Diverging opinions on key areas of debate include, amongst others, strategies for post-pandemic recovery and the future relationships with the EU and the UK.

A Senedd too small?

A long-lasting debate on whether to expand the size of the Senedd will certainly surface in view of May’s elections. ERS Cymru has long been campaigning to introduce new members to the Senedd, given the growing responsibilities that the body has power to legislate upon. Enhancing the capacity of the chamber would ensure greater representation across the regions of Wales, as well as more comprehensive policymaking- which is currently object of disservice.

A more representative system

As Welsh voters prepare to go to the polls in May they can do so knowing that their vote will count and the parliament elected will be representative – a luxury most voters in England don’t have at this election. And now, after 20 years of PR in Wales surely it’s time Westminster caught up and ensured that voters in England could vote with the same peace of mind.

Federico Scolari is a Communications Placement student at the ERS from the University of Nottingham.

On Sunday night, the owners of 12 elite European football clubs – the big 6 in England, plus 3 top teams from each Italy and Spain – announced the creation of a new tournament, the European Super League. The Super League would be financed by JPMorgan with €4 billion (£3.45 billion) with the money spit amongst the competing clubs.

The founding clubs would be awarded permanent membership irrespective of merits and performance, effectively creating a closed elite for the wealthiest clubs that disregards the very principles of fair competition and reward in football.

As grass pitches defrosted on Monday morning, football fans across the world awoke in disgust. “Football is for the fans” and “created by the poor, stolen by the rich”, read the slogans across social platforms. Reactions from pundits, journalists, governments and institutions flooded the internet in a matter of minutes.

Boris Johnson was amongst the first politicians to comment on the new plans saying, “We’re going to look at everything that we can do to make sure this doesn’t go ahead in the way it is proposed.”

“Football is one of the great glories of this country’s cultural heritage” he added, “How can it be right when you have a situation where you create a kind of cartel that stops clubs competing against each other?” He further stated that the League went “against the basic principles of competition”.

The House of Commons Super League

He was right in many aspects. Competition and equality are to be cherished, in football and in politics. But there is an irony that many of those same politicians who stood up for a fair and equitable system in football have repeatedly failed to do it in politics.

In fact many of the issues with the European Super League are already features in our own political system – the same system so many in our politics are resistant to change.

Our First Past the Post has created a Parliamentary Super League dominated by two large parties – shutting our smaller parties and making it hard for new ones to gain representation.

Instead of a 12-clubs elite that can’t be relegated by popular will or merit, the Commons have hundreds of safe seats that MPs know, even when their party fails to win nationally, and the public decide their performance is just not up to scratch, their own place is still secure.

Think of Liverpool Walton constituency, one of the safest seats in England and home of Everton Football Club. With First Past the Post, we almost forget that smaller parties exist in the area, existing in Labour’s shadow. Had the Super League gone ahead we may have seen Everton fall behind Liverpool FC, excluded from the elitist circle and held back by the new system.

While the government has been promptly transparent in announcing its position against the Super League, it has time and time again refused to take action against a disproportional voting system that further hinder competition, fairness, and equality in our politics.

And that’s because, in our very own Westminster Super League, the two main parties are already at the top.

Football matters massively to this country. It’s the sunny Sundays with your family, the memories you create, the rivalry, the tradition, the pint down the pub with your close ones. It’s Leicester winning the Premier League, Forest’s back-to-back European Cups, and Sunderland’s 1973 FA Cup. It’s David vs Goliath, rich and poor alike, from any walk of life, united under history and tradition. When emotions get in the way, any result is possible.

But our Democracy matters even more, but it is much less considered when similarly disregarded by those in power.

Yet, democracy is stunningly similar to football. They’re both about equality, representation, fairness, unity, and participation. They both belong to all people indistinctively. And sometimes they can both be rigged, but not for that any less important. The beauty of it all is that things can change if people want them to, which is the heart of both democracy and football.

The Super League was cancelled in a matter of 48 hours. First Past the Post, which promotes the same, toxic traits, has been around far longer.

But we’ve seen what can happen when we all come together against unfairness, against the imposition of a rigged system.

If the Super League can be scrapped, so can our disproportionate voting system – and in its place a fair system where every vote counts.

Federico Scolari is a Communications Placement Student at the ERS from the University of Nottingham. 

Photo by Lars Bo Nielsen on Unsplash

Sign our petition for a fair voting system in the UK

Among the wave of elections that will be held on 6 May, voters across Scotland will be called to elect 129 members of the devolved Scottish Parliament for the sixth time in its history.

The Scottish Parliament passes laws on crucial areas of local government, including health, education and transport- as well as some influence on tax and welfare benefits.

Anyone with a Scottish address, registered to vote and aged 16 and over is eligible to vote.

In 2015, Scotland championed the votes at 16 campaign by extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, allowing more than 100,000 young people to have their say in both parliamentary and local council elections.

Scotland’s voting system

Elections for the Scottish Parliament employ the Additional Member System (AMS), which uses a mix of First Past the Post (FPTP) and Party List proportional representation.

73 constituency MSPs are elected from the Westminster-style FPTP ballot paper. The candidate with most votes is elected for each constituency, irrespective of vote share.

56 ‘list’ MSPs (the so-called additional members) are then added from a second ballot paper that includes a list of parties. Additional members are added based on the number of seats a party has won in the first ballot versus their overall vote share, in order to make parliament more proportional and match how voters preferences.

A proportional compromise?

The second ballot paper ensures greater representation, which compensates for the ailments of FPTP. The proportional element is intended to override any disproportionality created by the majoritarian nature of the constituency seats, providing a more proportional parliament while also keeping a single local MSP.

General Elections 2019 (FPTP) vs. Scottish Parliament Elections 2016 (AMS)

Our 2019 report on General Elections shone a light on those voters left voiceless due to disproportionate voting systems- with Scotland delivering some of the most disproportionate results across the UK for Westminster elections.

Under pure FPTP, the Scottish National Party performance was highly disproportionate, with a 22 percentage point increase in seats for an eight-point increase in votes. Some precarious victories occurred, with slim majorities in seats where more than two parties had substantial support.

Contrarily, the 2016 parliamentary elections saw the most proportional results to date under the AMS, which is a substantial improvement over pure FPTP. If the Scottish Parliament elections were conducted under FPTP we’d see one-party domination across Scotland with supporters of the other parties losing out.

Voting Intentions

The most recent polls show the SNP -currently in power- boasting a considerable lead over both Conservatives and Labour. The only notable change from the 2016 elections results sees the Greens gaining some ground over Lib Dems.

Differing areas of political debate include the potential for a new referendum for Scottish independence, post-pandemic economic recovery, climate change policies and more.

The Alba Party

There has been much talk of the launch of Alex Salmond’s pro-independence party, seen by many as an attempt to ‘game’ the AMS system to secure a disproportionate result in favour of pro-independence parties.

Alba, which is only contesting list seats, is pitching itself to pro-independence SNP voters who, due to the SNP’s dominance in the constituency seats, might see their list vote wasted.

But if Alba succeeded in this it’s not because they gamed the system but because enough voters supported them.  if a party is popular enough to pick up a decent level of support on the List vote and gain seats, like the Greens did in 2016 and look like doing again, then it isn’t really ‘gaming the system’. The system is designed to provide fair representation for supporters of parties who would not be properly represented under FPTP.

Polls show that it is far from certain that Alba will receive enough support to pick up List seats but ultimately that is a matter for the voters of Scotland to determine, one way or the other.

A more representative system

As Scottish voters prepare to go to the polls in May they can do so knowing that their vote will count and the parliament elected will be representative – a luxury most voters in England don’t have at this election. And now, after 20 years of PR in Scotland surely it’s time Westminster caught up and ensured that voters in England could vote with the same peace of mind.

Find out about ERS Membership

The Fair Play Pledge, a major initiative involving several democratic organisations, was formally launched this Wednesday to highlight the need for open and transparent campaigning for the May election period.

Next month thousands of candidates will be standing for election across the UK in a bumper set of local elections. The Fair Play Pledge encourages all of them to campaign cleanly, putting democracy first and ensuring that decency is prioritised.

The Fair Play Pledge asks candidates to commit to:

1. Campaign openly.
2. Financial fair play.
3. Campaign respectfully.
4. Respect privacy.
5. Champion defending and enhancing our democracy if elected.

Alongside the ERS, the coalition involves several democratic and civil society organisations and has already had the backing of Labour’s Sadiq Khan and the Liberal Democrats.

The Pledge – which calls on candidates to campaign with respect and compassion, uphold privacy and champion democracy – follows on from the creation of the successful #StopTheNastiness pledge run by Compassion in Politics during the 2019 general election.

Speaking at the launch event Jackie Weaver, who previously soared to international fame due to her commendable conduct during a rather heated Parish Council meeting, opened the discussion by pointing that “it is important to create an environment where people feel safe and able to contribute” and that she feels “really privileged to be part of the campaign- the ethos behind it is hugely important. The pledge is an opportunity to change things”.

Weaver’s experience shone a light on much wider issues in responsible politics and sensible political behaviour.

Tom Brake, Director, Unlock Democracy said: “It’s about decency. With the advent of social media, politics has become much coarser and cruder. We want people from all political persuasions to want to participate in politics, and they can only do that if they feel comfortable campaigning in that environment”. He added that he “fully expects all parties to sign up, as it is in everyone’s interest that politics is conducted in a frank, open, reasonable and rational manner”.

All major parties in England, Wales and Scotland were contacted ahead of the campaign launch. The Lib Dems have already signed up, alongside Sadiq Khan, who is running for re-election in London later this May.

To contribute, you can contact or visit the Fair Play Pledge at www.fairplaypledge.co.uk and add your name to the public letter encouraging all parties and candidates to sign up.

Kyle Taylor, Director of Fair Vote UK said: “Election laws haven’t been properly updated in over two decades. Facebook and Twitter didn’t exist then. We know people across the UK want our election rules strengthened to fight the scourge of dark money, foreign interference and rampant disinformation. We must remember that democracy belongs to us, the citizens. Let’s work together to demand better.”

As the ERS’ Jess Garland noted ahead of the launch, this May sees a huge round of elections in Britain – and it’s vital that voters get a clean and honest campaign. As misinformation and unregulated ‘dark ads’ spread across the globe, the public are being left in the dark about who is steering the debate. That means all candidates must step up to the plate, playing fair and being transparent about their funding.

The panel proceeded to point out that the absence of government regulation, as well as of suitable sanctions, is affecting the democratic process in negative ways. Our Democracy in the Dark report, written by two of the UK’s leading election finance academics, already observed major increases in untransparent campaigning conduct, which is neither regulated nor sanctioned accordingly.

That’s why we’re urging all candidates to commit to being open and honest in their campaigning this election – and to back reform that will ensure a level playing field of transparency in the future.

The Fair Play Pledge coalition is comprised of Fair Vote UK, Unlock Democracy, Electoral Reform Society, Open Rights Group, Global Witness, Centenary Action Group, Foxglove, Who Targets Me, The Citizens, Compassion in Politics & Clean up the Internet.

The Fair Play Pledge

On May 6, one year after elections were supposed to be held, more than six million Londoners will be called to the polling stations to elect their mayor (alongside 25 members of the London Assembly) for the next three years. Further elections will be held in 2024 irrespective of the postponing of the upcoming ones.

Usually, elections take place every four years, with no limit on the number of terms served.

These could be the last London Mayor elections with the Supplementary Vote (SV) system, as Home Secretary Priti Patel has announced disruptive plans to introduce Westminster style First Past the Post (FPTP) for some mayoral and all Police and Crime Commissioner elections.

What does the London Mayor do?

The Mayor of London has a £17bn annual budget and a duty to create plans and policies for the capital covering arts & culture, business & economy, environment, fire rescue, health, housing and land, planning, policing, regeneration, sport, transport and young people – but the bulk of the spending covers Transport for London, the London Fire Brigade and the Metropolitan police.

How is the London Mayor elected?

Mayoral elections currently use the Supplementary Vote system. The ballot paper has two columns of boxes alongside the candidates’ names. One column is for voters to mark their favourite candidate and the other to mark a second favourite.

You don’t have to mark a second favourite if they do not have one, and you can put an X in both boxes for the same candidate – but this is effectively the same as just marking your favourite and no additional benefit comes from this.

The deadline to register to vote is on Monday 19^th April 2021. Once registered, should you wish to vote by proxy, the proxy vote application deadline is on Tuesday 27^th April, at 5 pm. However, if you are self-isolating and wish to give a postal vote instead, the application deadline is Tuesday 20^th April, 5pm.

What is the point of the Supplementary Vote?

With the Supplementary Vote, if no candidate gets over 50% of the vote, the top two candidates continue to a run-off and all other candidates are eliminated.

If your favourite candidate gets through, your vote is counted for them in the run-off. If they didn’t, but your second choice did, your vote goes to them. The run-off candidate with the most votes is declared the winner.

The SV system has served London well for over twenty years. It ensures that candidates have a broader base of support compared to other voting systems -particularly FPTP- which is essential for an administration that manages over £17 billion yearly budgets towards crucial areas of government. If they used First Past the Post you could see a London Mayor elected on low levels of support – MPs have been elected on as low as 25%.

Who’s running – and how are things looking?

Some old and new faces will be standing for the mayoral race. Labour’s Sadiq Khan, who is running for re-election, is currently boasting a lead over all other candidates, according to the most recent opinion polls. Shaun Bailey is standing for Conservatives, Luisa Porritt for Lib Dems, and Sian Berry for the Green Party.

The Supplementary Vote gives a greater number of candidates a chance at being elected, as voters can signal their true support with a first choice, without worrying about their vote going to waste as they can back a larger party with their second choice.

While they may not win this time,  the smaller parties gain a solid base to build on for the next election.

Looking back at the 2016 London Mayor election, you can see that, as the top two in the first count (as seen on the left), Zach Goldsmith and Sadiq Khan go through to the second round (on the right). The remaining candidates are excluded and people who voted for them have their votes moved to their second choice. If their second choice was Zach or Sadiq these votes are added to the totals to find the winner.

Hover your mouse over the candidates to see where their voters put their vote in the second round.

Changing the Supplementary Vote to First Past the Post is a backwards step

Priti Patel’s plans to impose First Past the Post on London thankfully will not be in place for the 2021 elections. But the change is disruptive and unreasonable, other than being needless and entirely counterproductive.

The Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto did not mention any foreseeable change to voting practices, other than an ambiguous attempt to “continue to support the FPTP system”.

The Greater London Authority referendum of 1998 saw an overwhelming 72.01% of Londoners support an elected mayor – via the supplementary vote system – which is now being modified without public support.

Changing the electoral systems behind closed doors, following the expected defeat of the government’s candidate, without public involvement, would inevitably hinder representation, fairness and accountability.

The Supplementary Vote is in place to avoid mayors rising to power on low levels of support. A mayor that does not represent the diverse realities of London is one that fails the fundamental traits of democracy – in a city that has made of democratic values its core and its heart.

If anything needs changing, it would be FPTP for Westminster, which, even if it should be the beating heart of London, seems to be alienated from the progress that has built and shaped the city.

Momentum is building for wholesale reform of the House of Lords, as hereditary peerages are under public scrutiny after a Sunday Times report shed light on the absurdity of inherited titles – twenty years after reforms were introduced to begin to abolish them.

We have written about this before. We have explained Tony Blair’s compromise, the abandonment of constitutional reform and the absurdities that define the House of Lords. The report only reinforces our arguments. The hereditary issue is the tip of the iceberg and an urgent call for wide-ranging reform of the upper chamber.

The report in brief

All men. Most from one of three elite boarding schools. A combined 170,000 acres of land. Stunningly numerous examples of heirs that claim expenses and rarely intervene – or when they do, they are more likely to promote their personal interests.

Even those who do play an active role and vote on matters of public interest are only representative of the most privileged among us – and that is the opposite of what modern democracy should be. It is a distorted image that portraits very little of modern Britain, reflective of an asymmetry of power that hinders representation.

Currently numbering 85, hereditary peers account for more than one tenth of an already bloated 800 members’ chamber- the second biggest legislature in the world and one of the only two to reserve places in parliament by virtue of inheritance.

Heirs have costed an estimated £47 m of taxpayers’ money since 2001, and have claimed an average of £144,000 tax-free allowance for taking part in parliamentary proceedings over the past five years. Considering that the average hereditary has intervened only 50 times in that time, hereditaries cost much more than the value they create. If we were designing the Lords afresh, no country would accept this absurd and unexplainable system.

What can be done now?

Because internal by-elections have been suspended due to Covid-19, they could not resume at all. Since the start of the pandemic, four members have departed and have not been replaced, and they may never be.

All three speakers’ candidates in some way support this. The system can simply wither away if no hereditary is replaced by another and all by-elections are suspended. This idea has been put forward by Lord Grocott’s who has introduced three bills proposing an end to the by-elections, three bills sabotaged or talked out each time by other members of the Lords.

Given the average age of hereditary peers -71 years old- it could take a long time to see them gone. But letting a system wither away is not the same as embracing a wave of reform and cutting them out directly- one is an acknowledgment, the other is a statement of intent.

What do we need?

Not all heirs are rotten. It is not a targeted attack against those individuals that have worked and maintained honourable integrity when serving in the chamber. It is about fairness, representation and democracy. None of these can prevail if the outdated House of Lords keeps existing as it is.

There is much more to address within the red benches. Boris Johnson seems reluctant to embrace change, as he persists in loading the chamber with political appointees, party donors and ex-advisers, contrary to the advice of both Lord Fowler and, with the appointment of Peter Cruddas, even the Appointments Commission.

Time is ticking before the government announces the next Queen’s speech and considers much-needed calls for reform. We need a smaller, modernised and proportionally-elected chamber that represents the needs of today’s Britain.

Sign our petition for a fairly elected second chamber

This week, Home Secretary Priti Patel laid out new plans as part of a review into the role of Police and Crime Commissioners. The move would see the current preference-based Supplementary Vote (SV) system replaced by the First Past the Post (FPTP) for elections of the Mayor of London, as well as the Mayors of nine combined authorities in England and all PCCs in both England and Wales.

The move is alleged to “make PCCs more accountable to the public” and to “reflect that transferable voting systems were rejected by the British people in the 2011 nationwide referendum”. Unfortunately for those of us who want a fact-based discussion on how we elect our representatives, neither of these claims are entirely true.

The run-off ensures a broader base of support, as opposed to First Past the Post, which lets candidates win even if a big majority oppose them. Having individuals elected with broader support means they are accountable to more of the electorate and have a stronger mandate to serve. This is important for electing 1 out of 650 MPs, but it is particularly crucial for elections of one individual with substantial power – and does little to improve accountability.

The current system act as a safeguard against mayors and PCCs sneaking into city halls and local communities on low levels of support. This is vital for mayors as multi-million-pound budgets holders as and for PCCs as representatives with wide-ranging policing powers.

There are practical instances of this. If the past 2016 combined authorities’ mayoral elections had been held under FPTP, then West of England’s Tim Bowles would have won on just 27.3% of the vote, with about three-quarters of votes wasted. In just two contests (Manchester and Liverpool) did the elected candidate get over 50% of the vote in the first round under SV. Even if we can’t know if results would have been identical, these are some crucial differences.

Second, and contrary to the Home Secretary’s claims, there was nothing generic about the 2011 referendum on adopting the Alternative Vote. Unlike the EU referendum, which was open-ended on what our relationship would be after the vote, the 2011 referendum was a binding vote on a specific question – “At present, the UK uses the “first past the post” system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the “alternative vote” system be used instead?” –  It was not a vote for First Past the Post or against all transferable voting systems for all elections.

The voting system for Mayors and PCCs was in place before 2011 irrespectively, and it has served the City of London well for over 20 years. 72.01% of Londoners voted in favour of the Government’s proposals for an elected mayor and assembly, and the government’s proposal was to use a transferable vote to elect the mayor. A flawed justification for a flawed move.

If the review intends to ensure accountability and legitimacy, it is heading in the wrong direction entirely. And arrogantly so: replacing a functioning method with a broken one, without public support, can only serve to undermine these positions and lower public faith in our electoral processes.

Turning back the clock with a discredited, outdated and broken voting system should never be a priority. And while the ends are commendable – improving accountability and legitimacy – these proposals do neither. If the government’s intention is to improve the democratic process they should look into their own backyard and take care of the ailments of first past the post for Westminster instead.

Support our work, become ERS member today

That there is growing opposition to government plans to introduce mandatory voter ID should come as no surprise.

Requirements to show photo ID at polling stations, which are expected to be introduced in 2023, are yet another example of the government missing the mark when it comes to policies designed to protect UK democracy.

The move is designed to ‘reduce the risk of voter fraud and improve the integrity of the electoral process‘, but the evidence that such problem exists is minimal. Out of over 58 million votes cast in all elections in 2019, there was only one conviction for personation (the type of fraud voter ID is alleged to resolve) and one caution. Even allowing that one incidence of voter fraud is one too many, the threat to millions being denied and stolen their vote for lack of ID is far more concerning.

According to figures from the Electoral Commission in 2015, 3.5 million electors (7.5 percent of electorate) could be left with no way of voting. If ID forms were limited to passports and driving licences only, then as many as 11 million electors would not have acceptable ID – that’s a shocking 24 percent of the electorate.

Ethnic minorities are most likely to be affected by the policy: 47 percent of black people do not own a driving licence, compared to 24 percent of white people. With the pandemic having hit ethnic groups harder, there is even less need in advocating for a scarcely evidential problem, while further marginalising and polarising a social reality that needs cohesiveness and representation instead.

It would be insensible to claim that electoral fraud is insignificant. But other than being damaging, the need for the policy is imaginary – and extremely expensive.

Other than the obvious risks involved in potentially disenfranchising millions of voters, the policy serves as a costly distraction for both the government and voters.

According to the government’s own figures, the move may cost up to £20m per general election, and there’s no need to explain that funds ought to be directed towards some pressing issues – this figure could pay for 600 nurses each election.

And then there are the costs to the voter – for the ordinary adult citizen, a passport costs as much as £85, and a driving licence requires no less than £34. Those that do not travel or that cannot afford them will have neither, and will thus be denied access to the polling station – an unforgivably exclusionary practice.

The government have committed to introducing some form of free ID scheme but the details of this are scant and, with some councils already requiring photo ID for postal votes, little thought has been given to the administrative hurdles voters face in acquiring even free identification.

But this obsession with photo identification masks the real issues already built into our system around access to the ballot box.

As it stands, 25 percent of black voters are not registered to vote, along with 24 percent of Asian voters, compared to a 17 percent average across the population. It seems that the government has much more to do to address these missing millions than introducing new policies that could narrow the franchise even further.

Speaking at the APPG for Race Equality earlier this week, ERS’ Josiah Mortimer explained that ‘when millions of people lack photo ID, the policy would represent a wrecking ball to political equality. Imposing mandatory ID is totally the wrong priority right now. Make no mistake, ordinary people will be locked out of the ballot box’. He continued: ‘Ministers should be expanding voter rights, not taking a crowbar to the already-critical cracks in our democracy. We have a winner-takes-all voting system that too often makes people feel it’s not worth bothering voting at all. We need stronger, fairer elections. Mandatory ID will take us further away from that goal”.

Already, voter turnout in local elections stands at record lows – 35 percent in 2018  – public participation should be promoted rather than being undermined. Every other party opposes the introduction of photo ID and for good reason.

First Past the Post has already shown the ailments in representation, and the introduction of mandatory photo ID is a needless provocation that further hinders our democratic process, while penalising minorities and further widening the social divide.

We need to focus on what truly matters and ensure a fair electoral process for all.

Federico Scolari is a placement student with the Electoral Reform Society from the University of Nottingham.

Sign our petition to protect your right to vote

The ancient triumvirate of the British constitution – the Monarchy, the Lords and the Commons – is a historical trait whose origins can be traced all the way back to the 11^th century.

Such history and tradition are a hallmark of our political culture. But traditions are not always positive and can hinder progress, and sometimes things need to change to keep up with modern standards.

One such hindrance is most certainly the presence of hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

Who are hereditary peers?

Hereditary peers form part of the peerage of the United Kingdom and are the holders of titles such as Dukes, Earls, Viscounts and Barons

Hereditary peers are those whose right to sit in the Lords is due to their title being inherited from their fathers (or, much less frequently, their mothers). Currently, there are 814 hereditary peers although only 92 can sit in the Lords at any one time.

The Peerage Act of 1963 legislated, among other things, that female peers could claim their hereditary titles by a system of primogeniture, as long as they did not have any brothers, in which case the title would pass down to them instead. Despite this, all hereditary peers sitting in the Lords today are men.

Holding a title does not give you the automatic right to sit in the Lords but a chance to be eligible to take one of the reserved places. When a hereditary peer retires or dies, an internal by-election is held, with eligible candidates being drawn from those listed in the Register of Hereditary Peers.

How did they get there?

The House of Lords Act of 1999 removed all but 92 hereditaries, then numbering 750, breaking a 700-year-old right for all peers to sit on and vote from the red benches.

The remaining 92 were elected by all the previous hereditary peers in the House grouped by party affiliation – 42 Conservatives, 28 Crossbenchers, three Lib Dems, two Labour and 17 others. These numbers are set – when one Conservative resigns, a new Conservative is elected.

The decision to retain 92 hereditary peers was a forced compromise from then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, who, in his planned House of Lords reforms, had sought to remove all of them but was forced to back down following opposition from the Lords themselves, instead agreeing to let a small number remain as a temporary measure ahead of further reform later in the parliament.

Yet over two decades later the number of hereditary peers remains the same.

What do hereditary peers (actually) do?

Hereditary peers have just as much power as the other members of the upper chamber, the 26 Lords Spiritual and almost 700 appointed life peers. The House of Lords’ powers are set out – not to say circumscribed – in the Parliament Act of 1911 and 1949 but have varied greatly over time. Today, the chamber acts as a revising body that examines non-financial bills, investigates public policy, and scrutinises the government in power.

Why are they a problem?

The House of Lords remains an undemocratic body, where un-elected lawmakers take part in political decision-making without democratic accountability or representation. Life peers, undemocratic as they are, are at least appointed by the prime minister, who commands a majority in the commons, if not the nation. Occasionally, peers are appointed on the basis of their expertise, although political affiliation can often be the main factor.

But hereditary peers are effectively appointed by each other, chosen from a pool of individuals who claim a title by mere inheritance. Which in most cases relates to historic deeds or relationships of their long-dead ancestors.

The fact that one’s grandfather was a prominent figure worthy of serving in the chamber does not make his grandson equally worthy, nor does it legitimise the latter’s influence on matters of public interest. As Cunninghame Graham said

“Do we confide our teeth to an hereditary dentist’s care? Why therefore, our laws to an hereditary legislator, merely because he has taken the trouble to be born, and is the presumed son of his father?”

Lack of representation is the central problem. Hereditary peers – even more than non-hereditary ones – are a clear sign that the decisions of those in the upper chamber have no democratic legitimacy nor accountability.

Wholesale reform of the House of Lords is much-needed in favour of a chamber that fairly and democratically represents everyone from all across the UK – and the hereditaries must be the first to go.

Sign our petition for a fairly elected second chamber

May’s elections will see an exciting democratic first as voters head to the polls: 16 and 17-year-olds in Wales will be able to vote in elections for the Senedd.

This exciting breakthrough comes following legislation passed in 2019 that extended the right to vote in Senedd elections to anyone over the age of 16, as well as all qualifying foreign citizens. It sees Wales follow the example of Scotland, which allowed 16/17 votes for Holyrood elections back in 2015.

There’s a huge amount of enthusiasm among 16 and 17-year-olds for voting this May in Wales, just as we have seen in Scottish elections in which they can vote.

The win for votes at 16/17 was a real victory for Electoral Reform Society Cymru and the Votes at 16 coalition – and one we can build on. There is real momentum for change, to foster that sense of civic duty and engagement that we need.

But as it stands, the UK government is only increasing resentment by depriving 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland, Wales and across the UK the chance to have their say over who represents them in Parliament.

It remains a democratic travesty that 16 and 17 year olds will be able to vote in these nations – yet across the UK, those same voters will be denied a say over their MP at the next election.

This is why the ERS is calling on the government must ensure young people across the UK are able to take part in General Elections too.  Westminster is looking isolated in preventing the nearly 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds from participating in public matters, but the movement for a fairer franchise is growing.

Championing voter engagement

To mark Votes at 16 Week, ERS Cymru is leading a call for party leaders to ramp up their engagement with new voters ahead of the Senedd elections on 6th May.

In a letter from 32 leading Welsh civil society organisation and academics democracy campaigners encouraged parties to ensure that they are reaching out and listening to these new voters when producing their policies.

Responding to the letter, Andrew R. T. Davies, Leader of the Welsh Conservatives, said that his party “welcomes the opportunity to engage with all those now old enough to vote for the first time”, adding it was “the most important Senedd election since 1999” and that “a stronger and more successful Wales is only possible if we engage and listen to our next generation”.

A Welsh Labour spokesman also commented that “the pandemic has changed so much of our lives – we want young people to shape the recovery and Welsh Labour will work alongside them to build a fairer, stronger and greener nation”.

Votes at 16 Week (22-26 February) sees a series of online events and activities for young people to raise awareness of May’s elections showing their commitment to making sure that young people have their voices heard in Wales.

What about Westminster?

With votes at 16/17 a reality now across the devolved nations we must also ensure all voters are heard in Westminster – including scrapping Westminster’s outdated winner-takes-all system.

Young people often feel particularly excluded in politics – but whatever generation you are part of, Westminster’s warped set-up is leading to millions of ignored votes each election.

We cannot leave another generation behind. Let’s build a stronger franchise – to start revitalising our democracy and rebuilding trust in politics at last.

Sign our petition to extend the right to vote to 16 & 17 year olds UK wide