England is likely to see swathes of ‘one-party councils’ picked next week, under England and Wales’ one-party takes all local electoral system.

Spread out over a whole council area, one party can get near 100% representation with less than half of the vote. When councils handle billions in contracts and public services, this poses major risks of dodgy contracts and lobbying going unscrutinised.

While Westminster’s lobbying scandal continues to grow, we need to have a closer look, closer to home.

In 2015 we found that councils dominated by single parties could be wasting as much as £2.6bn a year through a lack of scrutiny of their procurement processes.

The study, The Cost of One Party Councils, looked at thousands of public sector contracts, and found that one-party dominated councils are around 50% more at risk of corruption than politically competitive councils, paying far over the odds to lobbyist contractors.

Scotland and Northern Ireland already use a fair, proportional system for electing councillors – making local one-party states a thing of the past. Wales is letting local areas scrap First Past the Post and switch to the same system as Scotland and NI – the Single Transferable Vote.

Local one-party fiefdoms plague local government in England – with growing powers often wielded with shrinking oversight. It is a potential gift for lobbyists and shady contractors.

We often see the absurdity of ‘scrutiny committees’ – reviewing millions of pounds in contracts – being dominated by the same party in office.

The risks of winner-takes-all politics – of sloppy decision-making and dodgy dealings – are clear. One party councils could be wasting billions of pounds a year through a lack of proper oversight, according to the research. The warped voting system is actively raising the risks of corruption in England.

Voters deserve fair representation, not unjust domination by one party. Across England, voters want real choice and a clear voice – but they’re unable to break through the one-party ceiling.

A shift to proportional representation is vital to provide the effective scrutiny that voters need and deserve, and to open up the town hall cliques at last.

Instead, the Home Secretary is planning to make things worse by imposing First Past the Post on Mayors and PCC elections, a move that will hinder independents and deprive voters of real choice.

Nobody saved money by not checking things properly. If we want efficient local government, we need an effective local democracy, and then means councils that properly reflect their local areas.

Photo by Christopher Bill on Unsplash

Sign our petition for fair local elections across the UK

The ID trials, which followed an initial set of pilots last year, required voters in ten English local authorities (Braintree, Broxtowe, Craven, Derby, Mid-Sussex, North Kesteven, North West Leicestershire, Pendle, Watford and Woking) to present personal identification when visiting the polling station.

As in 2018, the participating local authorities tested three different types of identification requirements: a photo ID model (Pendle and Woking), a mixed model where voters presented either one piece of photo ID or two pieces of non-photo ID before casting their vote (in Braintree, Derby among other areas), and a poll card model, in Mid-Sussex, Watford and North West Leicestershire. In the areas piloting the photo ID and mixed ID models, voters who did not have the required identification could apply for a locally issued certificate of identity.

While the Cabinet Office declared the 2019 trial to have been a ‘success‘ for the government’s voter ID pilots, the Electoral Commission was more cautious in its judgement, saying: ‘Important questions however remain about how an ID requirement would work in practice, particularly at a national poll with higher levels of turnout.’

So, what did we learn from the Cabinet Office and Electoral Commission evaluations?

1. Around 2,000 people were initially turned away from the polling station for not having ID, with around 750 of them not returning to vote

Compared to allegations and verified cases of personation – the crime of pretending to be someone else at the ballot box – the figures for numbers turned away in each pilot area (see Table 1) are extremely high. Figures released by the Electoral Commission in March 2019 showed that, of the 266 cases of electoral fraud investigated by police in 2018 just one in five (57) related to complaints made about the voting process. Of these, personation fraud at the polling station accounted for just eight of the allegations made in 2018. There is therefore insufficient evidence to suggest that personation fraud is widespread in the UK, which makes it hard to justify this level of disenfranchisement for lack of ID.

Table 1: Number of people who were not able to show ID in each trial area

2. Requiring voter ID can have a potentially disproportionate impact on certain groups

As the Electoral Commission stated in its evaluation, some groups of people may find it harder than others to show ID, particularly photo ID. This includes people with protected characteristics as well as other less frequent voters. Possession of ID is not universal in the UK and previous research by the Electoral Commission showed that around 3.5 million citizens (7.5% of the electorate) do not have access to photo ID. Getting ID costs time and money, which some may not be able to invest, and we know that certain groups – particularly marginalised or vulnerable groups – are less likely to have ID.

Awareness of ID requirements also differs across demographic groups: those aged 18–34 were less likely to have heard about the pilots than those aged 55+; similarly, those from a BAME background were less likely than white respondents to be aware of the ID requirements.

Requiring identification has the potential to discriminate against certain groups and, as the Electoral Commission stated in its evaluation: ‘If there were to be a disproportionate impact on particular groups of voters this could also have a negative impact on public confidence; we know that problems at elections can affect voters’ and non-voters’ overall perceptions of the poll.’

3. Requiring voter ID had only a small effect on voter confidence among voters in pilot areas

The Cabinet Office report found that the perception of the polling station being safe from fraud and abuse increased by around 2–5 percentage points across the pilot areas. But levels of confidence in safeguards at polling stations were already high – with between 85% and 87% of people saying that voting at polling stations is safe from fraud and abuse before taking part in the pilots.

Similarly, the Electoral Commission’s post-poll research found that 77% of electors thought voting in general is safe, particularly at the polling station (81%). Indeed, looking at the Electoral Commission’s post-pilot surveys, it is clear that postal voting is more of a concern: ‘72% believe postal voting to be safe from fraud or abuse whereas 87% believe voting at a polling station is safe. The proportion who would describe voting by post as unsafe (15%) is three times the proportion who would describe voting at a polling station as unsafe (5%).’

In short, though the evaluations conducted by the Cabinet Office and Electoral Commission indicate a slight increase in perceptions of polling stations being safe from fraud and abuse as a result of the pilots, pre-existing levels of confidence in the security of polling station were already very high. This cannot be said for other aspects of electoral integrity, such as postal voting, on which the government is not currently focused.

4. Fraud is not voters’ top concern about elections

Post-poll research by the Electoral Commission found that electoral fraud is not at the top of electors’ concerns. Only one in four respondents (24%) said electoral fraud was somewhat of or a serious problem, with more (26%) stating it isn’t a problem.

By contrast, low voter turnout and bias in the media were considered to be a problem by 64% and 56% of respondents respectively. Other issues that came higher in people’s priorities were: inadequate regulation of political activity on social media (chosen by 38% of respondents); inadequate regulation of the money political parties spend on their election campaigns (38%), and foreign influence on UK election results (30%).

Only barriers to democratic participation for minority groups and intimidation of candidates that stand for election were lower priorities for voters than voter ID (chosen by 22% and 18% of respondents respectively).

5. Questions remain about how voter ID requirements  would work for the whole country in a general election

Unable to draw any definitive conclusions from the trials on how voter ID would work if rolled out nationally, the Electoral Commission highlighted three areas for further consideration: any scheme should clearly deliver improved security; it should ensure accessibility for all voters, and any ID scheme should be realistically deliverable at a national level, taking into account the resources required to administer it. Though most voters were able to vote on 2 May in the pilot areas, some of them were not. The disproportionate effect requiring voter ID has on certain communities in particular, as shown above, and the restrictions on where and when free local elector cards can be obtained are further evidence that current ID requirements are not accessible for all voters.

Though electoral administrators were satisfied with how the pilots were administered and didn’t find them to have been too resource- and time-intensive, the setting in which the trials were conducted is highly dissimilar to that of a typical general election – which is likely to attract higher numbers of voters from much more heterogeneous demographics.

Mandatory voter ID – particularly in a polity such as the UK with no universal, free or cheap access to ID cards – poses a risk to democratic access and equality which far outstrips the levels of personation at the ballot box and the slight increases in perceptions of polling station voting being free from fraud or abuse.

We should be focusing on addressing voters’ concerns – low turnout, media bias, financial interference in elections, among many others – not on preventing voters from exercising their democratic right to vote.

This article was originally published on Democratic Audit. 

Local democracy in England and Wales has long been under strain – with contests often seeing dismally low turnout, or indeed no contest taking place at all. But new research from the ERS adds fresh cause for concern.

There’s a ‘crisis of legitimacy’ for local elections in England, with the most detailed analysis of May’s elections in England yet revealing widespread disproportionality and absurd ‘wrong winner’ results.

In analysis published to mark this week’s 15 year anniversary of the introduction of proportional representation for Scottish local elections, we’ve highlighted a stark gap between the fairness of representation in Scotland and England.

In 115 English councils this May, a single party won over half the council seats up for election, despite getting fewer than half the votes in the area. This represents nearly half of all councils (46%) where local elections took place in England this year. In the most extreme case the Conservative Party took all of the seats up for election on Havant Council with just 43.9% of the vote.

Yet in the Scottish local elections in 2017 – conducted using the fairer Single Transferable Vote system – no council saw a party get more than half the seats with fewer than half the first preference votes. In other words, you only get a majority if you have majority support.

There are many other benefits to proportional representation. In many cases under First Past the Post, single-seat wards become ‘no go’ areas for other parties: the same person gets in every time, even in other parties have significant levels of support. That creates an incentive for parties to ignore areas all together and focus on ‘winnable’ seats. Voters lose out, denied a real choice.

In 2003, at the last Scottish local elections held under First Past the Post, 61 wards (5% of the total) were totally uncontested: there was only one candidate running.

In 2017 – having switched to proportional representation – there were just three uncontested wards in the whole of Scotland. Compare that with the broken winner-takes-all system in Wales where in 2017, 10.4% of Welsh council wards were uncontested.

In addition, in 17 English councils this May, the party with the largest number of votes did not secure the most seats creating ‘wrong winner’ results – a damning indictment of England’s woefully out-dated voting system.

As ERS Director of Research Dr Jess Garland noted, our analysis shows how our broken electoral system is distorting local election results. First Past the Post is delivering skewed results in over a hundred councils across the country meaning many voters’ voices are unheard.

England continues to rely on this undemocratic system for local elections, where only the votes for the top candidate to ‘get over the line’ secure representation – all others are ignored. Spread out over thousands of individual contests, this can lead to some parties being drastically over- or under-represented.

In Scotland and Northern Ireland, voters can rank candidates by preference, and ‘surplus’ votes (which would be ignored under FPTP) are redistributed according to voters’ other choices. Most advanced democracies use proportional systems where seats more closely reflect parties’ share of the vote.

It’s time we ended the broken First Past the Post system in England – a system that continues to warp our politics. A more proportional system would help open local democracy and make sure all voters’ voices are heard.

Top ten most disproportionate results

In no Scottish council did any one party receive more than 50% of the seats or 50% of first preference votes.

The ERS’ full audit of the English local elections in 2019 will be published in August. Can you help fund our research to make the case for a truly democratic voting system?

With thanks to Democracy Club for their elections data. Full local council election results are available through Democracy Club’s Candidate Database.

Sign our petition for a fair voting system for local elections in England and Wales

May’s local elections in England showed just how unfit-for-purpose the voting system is, as voters were left with random results and warped council chambers.

The elections saw big swings against the two main parties, as well as a rise in the number of independents. Professor John Curtice said it reflected a shift away from the Big Two.

Despite smaller parties and independents breaking through in many places, England’s First Past the Post system meant results in many areas were disproportionate – allowing the two main parties to win large majorities with increasingly smaller percentages of the popular vote.

In Havant, the Conservatives won all 11 seats up for election, despite receiving less than half the vote. Overall, the Conservatives hold 33 of the 38 councillors on Havant Council.

Meanwhile, in the West Midlands district of Sandwell, Labour won all 24 seats up for election, despite over 40% of votes going to other parties. This means Labour continues to hold all 72 council seats on Sandwell Council.

Now a new report from the think tank Localis has renewed the idea of ensuring councillors are elected using a fair, proportional voting system – as in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The authors note: “Recently there have been calls [from ERS] for a more proportional voting system in local government, giving voters a more nuanced choice and reducing disillusionment among voters.” 

More interestingly though are comments from council figures themselves, many of whom are – like voters – concerned about the number of ‘one party states’ in England: 

“Two Conservative council leaders from rural areas felt that a large majority was not doing them any extravagant favours. One noted: ‘I have too big of a majority, rather than dealing with the opposition, it’s keeping all the members of my Conservative group happy.’

“The second, from a similar political position said that, ‘a stronger opposition would be better. When you have very few individuals acting as the opposition, it is unhealthy because you aren’t as challenged as much as you could be’

“Of the many leaders who spoke to us about the importance of consensus, only a small number were from councils with small political majorities. Leaders need a strong challenge, regardless of which party it comes from; a strong majority doesn’t preclude a leader from facing opposition and a strong opposition doesn’t guarantee effective challenging of a leader.

“Regardless of its internal effect, political control of councils impacts on central-local relations. Several interviewees recalled the adage that ‘every opposition party talks localism whilst every government exercises centralism’. Any long period of single-party dominance in Westminster tends to be mirrored by charges of favouritism from councils dominated by the other main party.”

That favouritism is arguably a product of the bloc nature of the way we elect our councils – which leads to huge areas dominated by one party and big swings between governing parties. As the report notes: “These claims are not unfounded – there is evidence that metropolitan ‘red’ boroughs fared better under New Labour, as rural ‘blue’ shires have under the Conservatives.”

If every vote counted, under a voting system that ensured councils matched the political diversity of their areas, this situation would be less tenable: parties would have to listen to and cater for voters wherever they were, not just in the ‘heartlands’ or ‘safe seats’.

 Read the report here: http://www.localis.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/028_HittingReset_WEB_AWK.pdf

sign our petition for a fair voting system for local elections

On 2 May, thousands of people were elected to serve as councillors in local authorities across England. While a lot of attention has been given to the overall performances of political parties and independent candidates, little scrutiny has been given to some of the unfair and perverse results caused by the voting system used for local elections in England.

As with UK general elections, the voting system used for English local elections is first past the post (FPTP). This system makes possible a series of strange electoral outcomes, from every seat on a council being won by a single party, to the party winning most votes in a local authority not winning most councillors.

Despite this system being in use for decades for English local elections, you do not need to look far to see how things could be different. Since 2007, Scotland has used a much fairer voting system, the Single Transferrable Vote (STV), for local elections. Northern Irish local elections, which also took place last week, have used the STV system for many years. Using STV means that the make-up of councillors elected to serve on local authorities are much more likely to be in line with how local people have actually voted.

Prior to 2007, some Scottish councils were almost totally dominated by one party, despite that party getting nowhere near all of the votes in that area. Since the introduction of STV, there are no Scottish councils in this situation. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for their English counterparts, where FPTP means that unfair results, such as the ones from last week highlighted below, still occur on a regular basis.

In Sandwell, in the West Midlands, Labour candidates won all 24 councillor places up for election, despite over 40% of votes going to candidates not representing the Labour party. This means that two-fifths of voters who turned out in Sandwell did not see a single candidate from their chosen party elected to their local council. It also means that Labour continue to hold all 72 council seats on Sandwell Council.

Sandwell Council

In Havant, on the south coast in Hampshire, an almost mirror image outcome occurred, with the Conservatives winning all 11 council seats up for election last week, despite winning fewer than half of the votes. This means that an astonishing 56% of voters did not see a single candidate elected from their party of choice. Overall, the Conservatives hold 33 of 38 councillors on Havant Council.

Havant Council

Supporters of FPTP often argue that it produces clear wins for parties who get the most votes, however this is far from always the case. Last week, the Conservatives took 43% of the votes in the Basildon Council area, to Labour’s 24%, yet Labour won 6 councillors and the Conservatives won only 5 councillors. There was a closer result in Kingston-upon-Hull but again there was a ‘wrong winner’. The Liberal Democrats took 43% of the votes, to Labour’s 40% but Labour won 10 councillors and the Liberal Democrats won only 9 councillors.

Basildon Council

Kingston-upon-Hull Council

With councils in Wales likely to soon be given the opportunity of conducting local elections using STV, there is a danger that local elections in England will become the only ones in the UK continuing to use the outdated and unfair FPTP system. In order for votes to be fairly translated into representation on local councils throughout the UK, it is vital that a switch to STV for local elections also takes place in England.

Sign our petition for a fair voting system for local elections

Here’s something you might not know about Thursday’s local elections: hundreds of thousands of potential voters are being told that unless they bring ID with them, they’ll be turned away.

If rolled out nationally – as the government wants – this represents a real threat to democratic engagement.

As part of a Cabinet Office trial, people in 10 council areas will be forced to present personal identification before casting their ballot at the polling station in: Braintree, Broxtowe, Craven, Derby, Mid-Sussex, North Kesteven, North West Leicestershire, Pendle, Watford, and Woking council areas.

Two other councils originally signed up to the scheme but later dropped out – amid valid fears about resources and voters being excluded. Councils are already stretched to the limit: the last thing many want is to become glorified bouncers.

Ribble Valley council said the process would be ‘too resource intensive’ and East Staffordshire council said it was ‘concerned about the time allowed for us to communicate with the electorate what valid forms of ID would be permitted.’

The government already piloted mandatory ID at the 2018 English local elections. In Gosport, Swindon, Woking, Watford and Bromley, voters were required for the first time to bring a form of identification. Around 350 people were turned away and didn’t come back to vote, meaning that they were effectively denied a say.

While it looks like councils have spent a lot raising awareness this year, the root problem remains: the policy could disenfranchise large numbers of voters if rolled out across the country.

A new briefing we’ve just published highlights figures from the Electoral Commission showing that, of the 266 cases investigated by police relating to the 2018 local and mayoral elections and local by-elections, the majority (140) were campaigning offences and just one in five (57) related to complaints made about the voting process itself. In other words, not solvable with mandatory voter ID.

Personation fraud at the polling station – the crime of pretending to be someone else at the ballot box, which is what the government’s voter ID pilots claim to address – accounted for just eight of the 266 allegations made in 2018. Yes, you read that right: eight. (No further action was taken for seven of these allegations and one was locally resolved).

But aside from being a distraction, the government’s own estimates show that rolling out voter ID nationally could cost up to £20m per General Election. That equates to £700,000 per allegation of ‘personation’ in the General Election year of 2017.

Most electoral offences are committed by parties rather than voters. Yet it is innocent voters who lose out when the government locks ordinary people out of democracy – and millions risk being excluded from our politics because of these plans.

Let’s not forget that research by the Electoral Commission shows that around 3.5 million citizens (7.5% of the electorate) do not have access to any photo ID. And if voter identification requirements were restricted to passports or driving licenses, around million citizens (24% of the electorate) could potentially be disenfranchised.

So rather than spending up to £20m per election on making it harder for millions to vote, we should be encouraging participation and engagement.

We think it’s time the government scrapped its ‘show your papers’ policy – and instead invested in improving democratic engagement and modernising Britain’s dangerously outdated campaign rules instead.

We’re not alone either: prior to the 2018 pilots, a major coalition of over 40 leading civil society groups, charities and academics joined the ERS in opposing mandatory ID plans – including Age UK, Stonewall, Liberty, The Salvation Army, Migrants’ Rights Network, the British Youth Council and the Race Equality Foundation.

Forcing all voters to show their papers at the polling station is a solution looking for a problem. If the government is minded to, there are plenty of other pressing democratic problems to sort out.

Read the ERS’ new briefing on the voter ID trials

Sign the ERS’ petition against the government’s undemocratic voter ID plans

Next week, on Thursday, 2 May, voters in many parts of England will go to the polls to elect their local representatives. Elections will take place in urban metropolitan boroughs, unitary authorities and district councils, which tend to be more suburban and rural in nature. In all regions of England apart from London there are some elections taking place.

Come polling day, however, there are around 280,000 would-be voters who will be disenfranchised. These people live in wards where councillors will be chosen without a single vote being cast. In these wards not enough candidates have been nominated, so no election is necessary. This means candidates will be appointed as members of local authorities without facing any electoral challenge.

There may well be fine individuals amongst the 148 councillors who will take up their role without facing scrutiny at the ballot box. However, it cannot be good for local residents to have representatives imposed on them without the opportunity to express a preference for an alternative.

In addition to these 148 uncontested seats, a further 152 council seats are guaranteed for one party or another before any voting has taken place. This is because of a lack of competition in some multi-member wards, where more than one councillor is up for election. For example, in a ward where three councillors will be elected, if one party puts up three candidates but two other parties put up only one candidate each, the first party is guaranteed to win at least one of the seats in the ward. Around 580,000 potential voters live in wards such as these, where their democratic choices will be restricted.

Overall, before a single vote has been cast, 300 council seats across England are guaranteed to particular candidates or parties, with around 850,000 would-be voters living in wards where they are either denied a vote completely or where their choice will be constrained by a lack of candidates (see Figure 1). This does not look much like democracy and especially not a vibrant one.

Figure 1: Total uncontested and guaranteed seats by region

Note: Electorate sizes should be treated as estimates. For most of the wards, ERS researchers used Boundary Commission for England data from 2015. Where there was evidence that there have been boundary changes in a council since 2015, we have used figures from the most recent Local Government Boundary Commission for England review for that local authority.

This democratic deficit is a long-running sore at the heart of local government in England, where these uncontested and under-contested seats have been a feature of local elections for decades. A key reason for this lack of competition is the voting system. As in UK general elections, the first-past-the-post (FPTP), winner-takes-all system is used and, as with parliamentary constituencies, this means many council wards are seen as ‘safe’ for one party or another. In some places, parties or candidates conclude there is little incentive to invest time and money contesting wards where their chances of winning are perceived to be very small. It is important to note that in these ‘safe’ wards there is highly likely to be substantial support for parties and candidates not belonging to the dominant party, just not enough support to make victory likely under FPTP.

Evidence from other parts of the UK indicates that there is a very simple solution to the problem of local representatives being appointed without election. In Scotland, the single transferrable vote (STV) electoral system was introduced for local elections in 2007 and since then uncontested seats have been virtually eliminated at a local level. STV is used to elect councils in Northern Ireland as well, where local elections will also take place on 2 May. Here voters do not face uncontested seats in any of the 11 local councils.

In Scotland and Northern Ireland, they use the single transferrable vote electoral system and uncontested seats have been virtually eliminated Click To Tweet

STV  is a system where a small team of representatives (3–5 councillors is ideal for local elections) are elected to represent an area. Voters number candidates in order of preference on the ballot and can rank as many or as few candidates as they wish. To get elected, a candidate needs to win a set amount of votes, known as the quota, which is based on the number of seats available and the number of votes cast. Any candidate who reaches the quota is elected. However, rather than ignore extra votes a candidate receives above the amount they need to win, these votes are re-allocated to these voters’ second-preference candidates. If no candidate reaches the winning quota, then the least popular candidate is eliminated, and their votes are re-allocated to voters’ second-preference candidates. This process continues until every vacancy is filled.

This approach drastically reduces the number of wasted votes, which in turn increases voter choice by making it worthwhile for a wider range of parties and candidates to stand in all areas because the votes they receive are much more likely to be turned into the tangible reward of elected representatives, rather than being wasted if the party doesn’t come first. The system is also fairer, in that it ensures that local council representation more closely matches the support that parties and candidates receive at the ballot box than is the case under the FPTP system.

Wales is also considering introducing  STV for its council elections, which means there is a real possibility that England will soon be the only part of the UK where uncontested seats continue to plague local democracy. Such a change to the voting system for English local elections would go a long way to ensuring that no voters are denied a genuine choice at the local ballot box and would provide a boost to democratic engagement at a local level.

This democratic deficit is a long-running sore at the heart of local government in England, where these uncontested and under-contested seats have been a feature of local elections for decades. A key reason for this lack of competition is the voting system. As in UK general elections, the first-past-the-post (FPTP), winner-takes-all system is used and, as with parliamentary constituencies, this means many council wards are seen as ‘safe’ for one party or another. In some places, parties or candidates conclude there is little incentive to invest time and money contesting wards where their chances of winning are perceived to be very small. It is important to note that in these ‘safe’ wards there is highly likely to be substantial support for parties and candidates not belonging to the dominant party, just not enough support to make victory likely under FPTP.

Evidence from other parts of the UK indicates that there is a very simple solution to the problem of local representatives being appointed without election. In Scotland, the single transferrable vote (STV) electoral system was introduced for local elections in 2007 and since then uncontested seats have been virtually eliminated at a local level. STV is used to elect councils in Northern Ireland as well, where local elections will also take place on 2 May. Here voters do not face uncontested seats in any of the 11 local councils.

STV  is a system where a small team of representatives (3–5 councillors is ideal for local elections) are elected to represent an area. Voters number candidates in order of preference on the ballot and can rank as many or as few candidates as they wish. To get elected, a candidate needs to win a set amount of votes, known as the quota, which is based on the number of seats available and the number of votes cast. Any candidate who reaches the quota is elected. However, rather than ignore extra votes a candidate receives above the amount they need to win, these votes are re-allocated to these voters’ second-preference candidates. If no candidate reaches the winning quota, then the least popular candidate is eliminated, and their votes are re-allocated to voters’ second-preference candidates. This process continues until every vacancy is filled.

This approach drastically reduces the number of wasted votes, which in turn increases voter choice by making it worthwhile for a wider range of parties and candidates to stand in all areas because the votes they receive are much more likely to be turned into the tangible reward of elected representatives, rather than being wasted if the party doesn’t come first. The system is also fairer, in that it ensures that local council representation more closely matches the support that parties and candidates receive at the ballot box than is the case under the FPTP system.

Wales is also considering introducing  STV for its council elections, which means there is a real possibility that England will soon be the only part of the UK where uncontested seats continue to plague local democracy. Such a change to the voting system for English local elections would go a long way to ensuring that no voters are denied a genuine choice at the local ballot box and would provide a boost to democratic engagement at a local level.

This article was originally posted on Democratic Audit.