This is an expanded version of a letter from our Senior Director,  Willie Sullivan, that was published in the Times on March 29th.

When MPs voted to take control of the order paper in an attempt to agree an alternative Brexit plan, it was seen by many as a chance to break the parliamentary deadlock.

But in last Wednesday’s votes, MPs failed to get behind any of the options on offer, with none of the eight getting majority backing in the chamber. The same could well happen again tonight. Obviously.

Let’s face it: the binary nature of the indicative votes – with MPs voting ‘Aye’ or ‘Noe’ to each option – was realistically never going to achieve a consensus. That’s something the architects of the process no doubt expected – and an outcome which helps the government. It’s why a second round of indicative votes is scheduled for today. Yet when Sir Oliver Letwin proposed this next round of voting, he was hounded down by MPs on his own benches: ‘Ridiculous’.

Regardless of their motivations for opposing a fresh round of voting, on Monday, when the indicative votes on Brexit options return to the commons, we risk seeing more of the same: we could once again find ourselves in a position where no single option commands a majority meaning Parliament’s Brexit paralysis continues.

The failure of this process to find a way through lies in the fact that it didn’t let MPs rank their preferred options – i.e. simply putting numbers down instead of an X next to the options. If they had done, we might have seen them find common ground by working out which of the solutions on offer could secure majority support. Indeed, Ken Clarke (architect of the permanent Customs Union motion) is among many MPs calling for a ‘preferential’ model to be used.

But the failure of imagination when it comes to the way MPs voted last night shouldn’t come as a surprise. Even in this time of national crisis, Westminster is still locked in an outdated binary mentality – and averse to working towards a common goal.

What we’re seeing in the Brexit debate is a microcosm of Westminster’s adversarial politics as a whole. Two opposite sides digging their heels in, and a long-standing failure to ‘reach out’ to other parties and viewpoints.

It’s a culture that stems from the divisive voting system used to elect MPs themselves: one where only one person can win each seat (and all the other voices/votes are ignored), where results are distorted, and where the diversity of the public’s views often goes unrepresented.

The whole debate on Brexit has been pitched by many as the battle of the 52 vs the 48 – a continuing fight between the winning Leavers and losing Remainers. But that too is to diminish the many shared perspectives and priorities of people across that divide: from health and public services to simply being heard.

Across our politics, on Brexit and beyond – both inside and outside Parliament – we need to move towards ways of building consensus and bridging these divides. To do that, MPs needs to recognise that the decrepit First Past the Post electoral system is no longer fit for purpose.

We find ourselves in this state of continued uncertainty because Westminster’s adversarial structures don’t function in today’s society. We are not a country of two parties, divided solely on class lines, anymore.

When our electoral system gives us a distorted parliament – dominated by an over-represented group of voices, while others are side-lined – and when MPs mimick this with a indicative vote system antithetical to reaching consensus – how can we expect it to be any different?

MPs should have another chance to vote for a Brexit solution. But using the same discredited tools won’t break through this deadlock.

The vote is a chance for MPs to embrace a new, positive, consensus-building approach to politics and use proportional voting to break this deadlock.

It offers a way out of the current political impasse – it’s up to Parliament to take it.

There has been talking recently about using preferential voting to solve the Brexit impasse – whether through MPs using it to find a form of Brexit that parliament can support or through a referendum.

When there are only two options to decide between, voting is simple. Whatever happens, the majority will support one of the options. But when there are more than two options, it’s possible that none of the options will be supported by a majority. If the goal is to find out what the majority of people want, this can cause problems.

While MPs are wrestling between different forms of Brexit, Australia had this problem in the 1910s while electing their MPs.

In October 1918, a Labor candidate won a by-election on just over one-third of the vote, because conservative voters, who made up the two-thirds of the electorate, split their votes between the new Country Party and the Nationalist Party.

This meant that the majority of people were opposed to their new MP and would have preferred to be represented by a more conservative candidate.

Had Nationalist voters known that voting for the Nationalist Party candidate would have brought about a Labor MP, they would have voted for the conservative Country Party instead. What they needed was a way of expressing their second favourite choice.

The solution they came to was ‘preferential’ voting. Voters don’t just say who their favourite candidate is, but also their second favourite and so on, indicating as many preferences as they have. They simply write a number next to each candidate to indicate their preferences, rather than a cross next to just one option.

If more than half the voters have the same favourite candidate, that candidate wins. If no candidate gets the support of half the voters, the numbers provide instructions for what happens next.

At the count, poll workers look at the pile of ballot papers for the candidate who came last. These votes get moved to the piles belonging to each voter’s second favourite candidate. This process is repeated until one candidate has half of the votes and becomes the MP.

In America, they call this system Instant Run-Off voting as it is like holding a series of run-off elections – where each time, the person who came last in the previous round is excluded. But rather than coming back every weekend to vote again, voters indicate in one go who they would vote for if their favourite was excluded.

Around the world, this system is used in most of Australia’s elections and for the president of Ireland. But it has also been used in a number of referendums.

In 1977, Australia was looking for a new national anthem. With four options on the table, Australians could have ended up with a national anthem three-quarters of them didn’t really like. So, voters used preferential voting to decide. Each voter put God Save the Queen, Advance Australia Fair, The Song of Australia and Waltzing Matilda in order, with their favourite at number 1. Ultimately, Advance Australia Fair came out as the winner and became the national song.

Similarly, in 2015–16, New Zealand was looking for a new flag. Following a design competition, the public used preferential voting to decide between five designs in a 2015 referendum. The winning option then went to a one on one with the existing flag in 2016, and lost.

Another example is that of Prince Edward Island (P.E.I.). Here, in 2016, residents were asked to choose a new electoral system. Voters used preferential voting to decide between five options: Dual Member Proportional Representation, First Past The Post, First Past The Post Plus Leaders, Mixed Member Proportional Representation.

Much like the debate MPs are having around Brexit, there was one option for the status quo and multiple options for change.

At the first count the status quo, First Past the Post, was in the lead with 31% of the vote as reformers were split across four options. As the more obscure systems were excluded, votes collected around the winning Mixed Member Proportional system (supported by 52% of voters). Although no threshold had been set before the vote, the government decided that the turnout was too low and ignored the result. Another referendum on electoral reform is due to be held in P.E.I. this year.

Preferential votes have been used around the world where the government wants to put more power into the hands of voters. In each of these referendums, the government could have simply held a straight First Past the Post vote with multiple options. But this could have led to an option winning without the support of a majority of voters.

The government could also have picked a challenger song, flag or electoral system to go up against the status quo in a one on one. But how could the government know which was the best one to go up against the status quo?

When it comes to how we choose our representatives, our flags and anthems, it’s vital the winner has broad support among citizens and that voters have as much choice as possible.

Preferential voting allows for widespread support to be built around one option and ensures that the public has as much ownership of the result as possible.