Polling from BMG research for the Electoral Reform Society has revealed that a record-breaking 30% of the public plan to vote ‘tactically’ in the next General Election.

Tactical voting occurs when voters choose the best-positioned party or candidate in order to keep out another party that they dislike… as opposed to actually voting for their preferred candidate.

Research carried out by BMG revealed that in the upcoming election, only half (51%) of all the electorate are likely to vote for “the candidate or party they most prefer regardless of how likely they are to win”.

It’s a sad indictment of Westminster’s voting system that people don’t feel able to vote with their heart – instead, having to second-guess each other at the polling station.

At a time when trust in politics is at rock bottom, people need to know that their vote will count, regardless of where they are in the country.

Our current electoral system is failing to progress with the times – demonstrated by the fact that 14 million voters are in seats that have not changed party hands since the Second World War.

With so many voters in constituencies where one party is almost certain to win, and unable to ‘shop around’, millions feel forced to vote tactically or else their votes are wasted.

Under Westminster’s failing system, millions of voices are left out of the debate. People who live in these areas with ‘safe seats’ – i.e. one-party fiefdoms – are continually denied the right to express their preferred party or candidate.

For all the discourse on how volatile politics is today, only a small number of voters will actually have an influence on the outcome of this next election.

For all the discourse on how volatile politics is today, only a small number of voters will actually have an influence on the outcome of this next election. Click To Tweet

But ERS are sounding the alarm for change, this Democracy Day (Thursday 5th). It is high time the next government introduced a fair, proportional electoral system and give voters the representation they deserve.

That is why this election should be the last conducted under First Past the Post, which has shut out so many voices. A shift toward proportional representation would help ensure seats match votes – and end the (often contradictory) clamour about how to vote ‘tactically’ in hundreds of seats. We could – shock, horror – begin to focus on the issues instead.

In the last election, just 70 seats – 11% of the total changed hands – a figure that’s been declining over recent years. Polling from YouGov’s MPR projection shows that December’s election could see just 58 seats could change to influence the election.

So it’s no wonder we hear so much talk over how to sway those handfuls of marginal seats.

“Being trapped with the same representation for decades is not the hallmark of a responsive and functioning democracy” notes Darren Hughes, Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society.

The reality is that in many parts of the UK there is not much of a contest in this election. It’s time we ended an unfair system which means that some people’s vote matters more than others.

ERS are calling for major reform of Westminster’s outdated and failing system: its time for a more fair and representative democracy.

This #DemocracyDay – Thursday 5th – stand with us for real change.

Few would say with honesty that Westminster is working. So it’s time to talk about how to change it.

The Electoral Reform Society – along with other democracy organisations – are calling for December 5th to be #DemocracyDay, to raise the need for political reform during the election. Click To Tweet

Despite – or perhaps because of –a crisis of trust in politics, the General Election debate has steered clear of the burning need to update Westminster’s broken system. We think that’s a mistake: how our democracy works affects the issues that are discussed, the voices that are heard (or ignored), and the laws that are passed.

This past couple of years we’ve seen scandals in the unelected House of Lords, a toxic political climate encouraged by winner-takes-all voting, the prorogation debacle, and growing calls for votes at 16/17. We’ve seen dark ads and dodgy donations steering our political debate, and First Past the Post voting failing to produce ‘strong and stable’ results.

But these issues have been noticeably absent from the election debate. We say it’s time to talk about our democracy.

With one in four expecting to ‘hold their nose’ and vote tactically this election, while parties stand down and deprive voters of real choice, we need to get to the bottom of the problems in our political system #DemocracyDay Click To Tweet

So, we’re summoning the support of parties, campaigners and the media to use December 5^th as a key date to bring Britain’s constitutional crisis – and options for real change – to the forefront.

This has to be the last election held under Westminster’s ‘unjust and undemocratic First Past the Post system’. But for that to happen, we need to make the biggest noise possible for reform.

Across the country, people are desperate for fair representation and greater choice.

So join the ERS and campaigners across the country to speak up for our political rights – and finally bring decision-making closer to the people.

ERS-led events on December 5^th

• Manchester: ERS-backed Democracy Day launch event at the People’s History Museum, featuring speakers from across parties. Register here.
• London: ERS/Institute for Government event on Westminster’s electoral system. Register here.
• Aberdeen: ERS Scotland and the University of Aberdeen’s joint public debate on Scotland’s citizens’ assembly. Register here.

New rules have just come into force at Google, banning political ads which target the public based on their political affiliations. (Targeting on the basis of age, gender and general location will be allowed to continue.)

It’s the latest response to growing calls to tackle the ‘toxic culture’ of dark ads and dodgy donors that risk undermining our political debate. Click To Tweet

Along with Facebook and Twitter, Google has been criticised for a lack of transparency over what political campaigns were pushing in the 2016 US presidential election and others since.

Campaigning has shifted increasingly to the online sphere, where party officials have been accused of micro-targeting political ads based on people’s personal and, in some cases, sensitive data (such as political views or sexual orientation). Such hyper-personal targeting has the potential to undermine the idea of a ‘national’ political debate – with citizens receiving different and highly personalised information during elections.

Before the launch of social media giants’ online ad ‘libraries’, it was almost impossible for journalists, civil society groups and voters to know what information and messages parties and campaigners were pushing to voters. So though admittedly flawed, these ad libraries are a step forward in enhancing transparency around political advertising.

Silicon Valley barons are responding in very different ways to the pressure for greater transparency. Twitter has just banned political ads altogether, though issue and cause advertising will still be allowed on the platform.

Outright bans on political ads do not stop parties or campaigners from disseminating misleading information, of course. BuzzFeed have highlighted a huge number of examples of misinformation and fake news this election, which social media giants are often reluctant to remove.

Zuckerberg recently revealed that despite facing pressure to reform its rules, Facebook would not take down ads containing false statements made and shared by politicians, and would ban fact-checkers from commenting on these ads.

The conduct of our elections online is currently a ‘Wild West’ – with the likes of Twitter and Facebook setting the policy. Click To Tweet

At the end of the day, the conduct of our elections online is currently a ‘Wild West’ – with the likes of Twitter and Facebook setting the policy. At a time where digital campaigning is becoming ever-more crucial to electoral outcomes, that’s a problem. Surely voters are entitled to high quality debate, free from misleading information and fake news?

The Electoral Reform Society along with other democracy organisations are calling for greater accountability for social media platforms – with common standards on transparency when it comes to online ads, and a joint Code of Conduct for campaigners pledging not to spread misinformation or mislead voters.

We need to ensure that the public has faith in the democratic process. In order to do this, the next government must bring our campaign rules into the 21st century and start to give the public real confidence in our elections again. Click To Tweet

Fundamentally, we need to ensure that the public has faith in the democratic process. In order to do this, the next government must bring our campaign rules into the 21^st century and start to give the public real confidence in our elections again.

You can view Google’s new ad library here. What’s your verdict?

Sabine McGinley is a Placement Student for the ERS from the University of Nottingham.

Sign the ERS’ petition to shine a light on the ‘dark ads’ undermining our democracy

The election is fast approaching: and it’s time to bring the ‘missing millions’ currently not on the electoral roll into the fold. If you aren’t on the register, your voice won’t be heard.

With only a day or so left until the midnight 26^th of November deadline to register to vote, there’s good news: there has been a dramatic surge in voting registration, with 2.8m applications since the election was called. But there is still a lot of work to be done.

An estimated 9 million people are still not eligible to vote: young people, ethnic minorities and low incomes are the groups most likely to be left out of the debate. That’s one of many reasons the Electoral Reform Society are calling for a ‘Herculean effort’ to register all of us, including hard to reach groups.

With such seismic decisions to be made for the future of Britain – both domestically and internationally – there’s a lot at stake. And while Westminster’s voting system is out-dated, you have to speak up to change it.

But it’s a shame we have to do these enormous registration drives. The ERS are calling for the introduction of ‘motor voting’ so that people can opt in to vote whenever they engage with public bodies/services. It should be easy to register and check you’re registered.

But today, we have to do all we can to bring in the missing millions before 26^th November deadline. That’s why the ERS launched National Voter Registration Day last Friday – a huge success with over 300,000 people applying to register.

As Darren Hughes, Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society, said:

“With millions missing from the electoral roll, it’s time to pull out all the stops and ensure everyone can have their say on December 12th. It takes just 5 minutes to register and it’s vital if you’re not already signed up that you do so.

“After this election, government must commit to updating the system so it works for all of us. The huge gaps in the electoral roll make our democracy less equal and less fair, and we need to put that right.”

Today the ERS and 15 other major charities, campaign groups and academics called for a major pre-deadline push to register. See below:

Joint statement from 16 leading charities, campaigners and experts:

“With millions of people missing from the electoral roll, it’s time to pull out all the stops and ensure everyone can have their say on December 12^th. It takes just 5 minutes to register and it’s vital if you’re not already signed up that you do so. Time is running out.

“As organisations representing a hugely diverse spectrum of society, we believe it is vital this election is built on a fair and universal franchise. That’s why registration is so important: if you’re not on signed up by midnight on November 26^th, you can’t have your say.

“We have to end the scandal of the ‘missing millions’. After this election, we call on all parties to commit to updating the system so it works for the whole UK. There are huge gaps in the electoral roll – from young people to BME groups and those on low-incomes: let’s close the gap and move towards automatic registration. In the meantime, we need to see an enormous push to bring in the ‘missing millions’. It’s time to be heard.”  

• Jess Blair, Electoral Reform Society
• Jo Hobbs, Chief Executive, British Youth Council
• Omar Khan, Director, Runnymede Trust
• Simon Woolley, Operation Black Vote
• Paul Martin OBE, Chief Executive LGBT Foundation
• Zamzam Ibrahim, NUS National President
• Andy Gregg, Chief Executive, Race On The Agenda
• Professor Matt Henn, Nottingham Trent University
• Dr James Sloam, Democracy and Elections Centre, Royal Holloway
• Sarah Clarke, Unlock Democracy
• James Cathcart, Director, Young Voices Heard
• Cara English, Gendered Intelligence
• Matt Gillow, TalkPolitics
• Mete Coban, Chief Executive at My Life My Say
• Matteo Bergamini, CEO and Founder, ShoutOut UK
• Areeq Chowdhury, Founder, WebRoots Democracy

That’s a huge coalition for a registration revolution.

But it needs you too. With your help, we can start to close the registration gap – and push for long-term reform to upgrade the rusty system.

You can register to vote online, why not send the link to all your friends and family to make sure they are registered? https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

On Twitter? Tweet why you’ve registered to vote #RegisterToVote

Tonight’s first round of television debates has been mired in controversy. Not over policies – but the format, with the SNP and Lib Dems mounting an unsuccessful legal challenge to being excluded.

It’s not necessarily who will but who won’t be taking part in these televised debates that has hit the headlines. Of the debates confirmed so far some exclude the leaders of smaller parties such as the Greens and the Brexit Party despite including the Liberal Democrats and the SNP whilst two will only be between Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn and the Conservatives’ Boris Johnson.

Nicola Sturgeon told BBC Breakfast that excluding her “would be not just wrong democratically but letting down voters.” Plaid Cymru are also rightfully concerned that the multi-party, multi-national nature of the UK may not be reflected on people’s screens, while the Lib Dems believe it is unacceptable that an anti-Brexit voice will not be heard in the Labour-Tory head-to-head.

At the heart of these conversations is a battle over the party system, which has been blown wide open in recent years as voters ‘shop around’ more than ever. Old party allegiances are fading: but so much of our political system and debate often fails to reflect that.

There is also disagreement over what the debates are for, with Sir Keir Starmer arguing that “we have to have a debate between the only two people who are capable of, or likely to become, Prime Minister”. Similarly, the Conservatives would prefer a one-on-one debate with more focus on the two parties who are most likely to form a government. It jars with the view that the debates should represent the political diversity of Britain more generally.

The debates are set to take place on BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky News. However, many believe that the whole legitimacy of these contests will be undermined if other leaders of the main political parties aren’t formally represented. Hence legal threats and rows over ‘empty chairing’, or the debates being ‘held to ransom’ by political party leaders. Shambolic, in sum.

It reflects a wider failure of the political system to move on from a binary two-party system. Despite people wanting to cast their vote for a wider range of parties and candidates, often shifting at each election, Westminster has failed again and again to represent this: an inevitable consequence under the First-Past-the-Post voting system.

Instead of having these rows each election, we have to recognise that politics has changed hugely this past decade – with voters wanting more choice and a stronger voice in elections.

As Darren Hughes wrote on Wednesday: “So much of our politics feels broken because it happens behind closed doors, rather than with voters’ input. It’s time for citizens’ to shape a proper structure for TV debates that will last, and bring these perpetual ‘empty chairing’ rows to an end.”

With a new Speaker in the Commons, perhaps they could establish a ‘Debates Commission’, to ensure elections are not a plaything of parties but a tool for voters to learn, engage and hold leaders to account during a campaign.

Sabine McGinley is a Placement Student with the Electoral Reform Society from the Unversity of Nottingham.

Read our 2017 report on the debates, Debating the TV Debates.

Sign our petition for a fair, proportional, electoral system

Across the country, a total of 650 Members of Parliament are elected to the Commons, with one per constituency. Under Westminster’s first past the post electoral system each MP doesn’t need to be supported by the majority of voters in their constituency, in fact, in 2015 a candidate won the Belfast South election with only 24.5% of the total, a record low.

Any party that wins more than half (326) of these seats has an overall majority in parliament (in practice the threshold is slightly lower as Sinn Fein MPs do not take their seats). That means they can form a government on their own, and pass laws – even if they didn’t get more than half the vote in the country.

However, when a party does not have enough seats to win an overall majority, the result is called a ‘hung parliament’, and they can form a ‘minority’ government and negotiate for support with the other parties for every law they try and pass, or try and forge a more permanent coalition deal.

Hung parliaments under first past the post

Like in 2010, the 2017 snap election resulted in the Conservatives failing to secure an overall majority, leading Theresa May’s party to form an agreement with the Democratic Unionist Party. For two years, the Conservatives relied on their confidence and supply agreement with the DUP to gain support on issues and pass important legislation in Westminster.

Then, just a few months ago, this too broke down over Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal, when the PM withdrew the ‘whip’ from 21 Conservative MPs.

The problem with hung parliaments under First Past the Post is that the governments formed can still fail to represent the majority of voters: just over 43% of people voted for the Conservatives and DUP in 2017. But the lack of a proportional voting system meant that equated to a majority of seats.

Power-sharing under proportional representation

Under a proportional electoral system, where seats in parliament match how we vote, power-sharing is more common: Scotland and Wales have enjoyed power-sharing for much of the existence of their parliaments – although they can still have single parties in power if enough people vote for the same party.

The difference is: power-sharing arrangements there are based on much fairer results – representing a majority of voters, with possible coalitions discussed before elections, not pretending that every party would win a landslide.

One thing is clear, our current one-person-takes-all system is outdated – and fails time and again to generate clear majorities.

It’s no wonder people feel distant and unheard. The public is becoming more politically diverse and shopping around. It is time that our electoral system accommodated this profound and positive shift.

First Past the Post has failed for the past three elections to do what it’s meant to: create ‘strong’ single-party government. But perhaps it’s time to move on from that outmoded mentality and support working together. Hung parliaments aren’t the problem: Westminster’s broken system is.

Sign our petition for a fair electoral system

Let’s use this election as a chance to re-build democracy on stronger and fairer foundations

As the UK prepares for its next general election in December, it is important to revise what needs to be done in order to make sure our next election is as fair and representative as possible.

1.    Unfair Vote Splitting and Disproportionality

Most British voters end up being represented by an MP they didn’t actually vote for. Under Westminster’s First Past the Post system, a candidate the majority oppose can secure 100% of local representation, if the vote is split their votes across multiple candidates.

As seen in both 2015 and 2017 general elections, there is a huge inequality in the way that the public vote is split. Due to how votes are spread across the country, the Conservatives and DUP currently share a majority of seats with just 43% of votes. Yet more than 500,000 votes across the UK elected just one Green MP, and a similar number of votes saw no UKIP MPs elected. First Past the Post makes millions of people feel silenced, sometimes looking for non-parliamentary ways of being heard instead.

First Past the Post makes millions of people feel silenced, sometimes looking for non-parliamentary ways of being heard instead. Click To Tweet

Many constituencies haven’t changed their seats in decades, and most have no prospect for changing in the next general election. Where candidates live places great emphasis on how they vote, areas which have a ‘safe seat’ means peoples vote counts less and parties can continue to ignore the expression of voters.

2.    Voter Registration

Millions of people are still not registered to vote – up to 9.4m on the ‘local’ electoral roll, according to the Electoral Commission. Worryingly, the number of people registered to vote has actually been decreasing despite the overall population increasing.

The ERS want to change this by allowing people to ‘opt in’ to the electoral roll whenever they deal with public sector bodies, in order to move towards more automatic registration. Maintaining voter registration lists is vital for protecting electoral integrity and ensuring those who are eligible to have their say at the ballot box.

3. Outdated campaign rules

There is an urgent need to update our election campaign rules. Most of the rules written on how political parties can structure their campaigns were drafted twenty years ago, before the internet changed the face of campaigning.

Most of the rules written on how political parties can structure their campaigns were drafted twenty years ago, before the internet changed the face of campaigning. Click To Tweet

Given the increasing influence that social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have on modern political campaigning, it is vital that we revise the rules on how campaigns are practiced. For instance, greater regulation and transparency should be considered in order to avoid anonymous ‘dark ads’ and the potential for foreign donations that threaten our elections.

What next?

In order to fix our democracy, the ERS are calling for constitutional changes including modernising the voting system, giving voters proportional representation for Parliament.

As well as this, we must ensure a registration revolution and reform campaign rules to ensure more people are practicing their democratic rights. Thankfully, our campaign is picking up pace. Join us.

Facebook recently triggered a major public debate by changing its rules on posts by political campaigners.

Previously these had been open to ‘fact-checking’ by trusted organisations. However, the new decision means the site will not take down politicians’ posts that violate its community standards or label untrue claims as ‘disputed’, in contrast to rival Twitter.

Justifying the move, head of global affairs Sir Nick Clegg said: “Would it be acceptable to society at large to have a private company in effect become a self-appointed referee for everything that politicians say?… I don’t believe it would be.”

There are strong arguments and feelings on both sides, not least given evidence of foreign interference in elections via online means.

But Nick Clegg did raise a crucial point: should it be up to social media giants to govern the conduct of our elections? We need democratically-passed laws fit for the 21^st century.

Should it be up to social media giants to govern the conduct of our elections? We need democratically-passed campaign regulations fit for the 21st century. Click To Tweet

In both the EU referendum and the US Presidential Elections of 2016, there were reports of ‘bots’ and ‘fake news’ sites pushing stories that could steer the debate – with little oversight. The question of how to tackle that is now a topic of concerted public conversation.

When there is a need for change but voluntary efforts are not enough, we have to change the law. The primary piece of electoral law came into effect in 2000 – before online campaigning was a serious force.

The last election saw parties spend £3.2m on Facebook alone – more than double the figure in 2015. Yet social media ads can be purchased with relative anonymity.

One urgent change needed is to ramp up political transparency, to ensure that all online political ads must say who is funding them – bringing the rules into line with printed materials. Voters should also know why they are being targeted with that online content.

At present, our analogue-age campaign rules mean our elections are a Wild West – meaning we face the risk of foreign interference in a snap general election.

Earlier this month, the ERS published a new briefing, highlighting the loopholes that make our elections more vulnerable. We cannot allow our elections to be left at the whim of dodgy donors and outside interference. In a way, both sides of this debate are correct:

Facebook and Twitter should be taking action – but setting the rules shouldn’t be at the whim of Silicon Valley CEOs.

Facebook and Twitter should be taking action – but setting the rules shouldn’t be at the whim of Silicon Valley CEOs. Click To Tweet

Earlier last year, the ERS and many others submitted to the government’s consultation on protecting democracy, with the Society urging the government to require political adverts published online to include ‘imprints’ stating their real origin and funder.

This recommendation has still not been implemented, with the government accused of dragging their feet despite a clear consensus (including backing from the Conservative chair of Parliament’s Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee).

And it’s still difficult to know how much parties and candidates are spending targeting you you’re your personal data online. We need to see legislation passed to implement ‘real-time’ donation reporting during elections – so the general public know what is being spent during an election to steer the debate. Reporting of social media ads should be clear, online and separated from other forms of spend. And gifts – whether ads or otherwise – to campaigns of less than £500, absurdly aren’t treated as ‘donations’ at present. They should be clearly listed for what they are.

Meanwhile the Electoral Commission’s maximum £20,000 fine for breaking what few rules we have can currently be seen as the ‘cost of doing business’, while the Electoral Commission lacks the investigatory powers of other regulators. The Electoral Commission’s maximum fines must be significantly increased and its investigatory powers bolstered.

It is scandalous that despite knowing about these issues for a long time, no action has been taken. Instead of dealing with potential foreign donors and unscrupulous influencers, the government are targeting ordinary people through undemocratic plans for mandatory voter ID.

Instead of dealing with potential foreign donors and unscrupulous influencers, the government are targeting ordinary people through undemocratic plans for mandatory voter ID. Click To Tweet

That’s why we’re calling for emergency legislation to close the loopholes and strengthen our democracy. The Queen’s Speech promised action later in the year on online political ads – but these will not come into effect before a December election. There’s not long to act – but act we must.

Sabine McGinley is a Communications Placement Student for the ERS, from the University of Nottingham. 

Sign the ERS’ petition for the government to act on ‘dark ads’ now

It looks like Justin Trudeau has narrowly secured his second term as Canada’s Prime Minister. But his party lost out on a majority of seats as well as the popular vote.

It was a tough election for the party, but under First Past the Post the  Liberals managed to come close to a majority with just 33% of the vote. he party is 13 seats short of the 170 needed for a parliamentary majority, meaning Trudeau  will work with smaller parties in a minority government.

[bctt tweet=”There was considerable criticism of Trudeau for abandoning a commitment to electoral reform during the last Parliament.” username=”electoralreform”]

Back in 2015, Trudeau vowed to overhaul the existing voting system and declared that the federal election of that year would be the final one conducted under the a winner-takes-all system.

However, in what could be good news for those who support a fair, proportional voting system, the Liberal leader will now have to rely heavily on smaller, pro-PR parties such as the New Democratic Party (NDP) and Greens to pass legislation in Canada’s House of Commons.

The NDP led by Jagmeet Singh had a surge in polls in the final weeks of the campaign but were unable to transfer this into electoral success. The NDP have previously noted that First Past the Post politics ‘allows a party to win more than half the seats in parliament’ with fewer than half the votes.

Singh has voiced that one of his key commitments is to change the voting system to proportional representation (PR). Fair Vote Canada – an activist group pushing for PR for nearly 20 years have highlighted Singh’s comments:“Bringing in a proportional system with adequate local representation will be central to our work in our 2019 campaign”. Singh added “I believe in giving power to the people” and “the first past the post system creates false majorities which is wrong”.

Given the NDP’s new position in the hung parliament, Singh could try to push for electoral reform and make it a necessary condition for alliance or support in a minority government. Polling from Angus Reid also shows that a large proportion of Canadians support a move towards proportional representation, and believe Trudeau was wrong to break his previous pledge.

If the NDP followed through with their commitment for both local and proportional representation under a ‘Mixed-Member’ system. It would not be put to a referendum but passed into law before the next election. After two consecutive elections under this new system, a referendum would be held for Canadians vote on whether stick to the proportional model or go back to the old system.

Canada is one of the last countries among advanced democracies to still use FPTP for its main elections – a legacy of British rule. There is now hope for positive reform, if other parties co-operate on implementing proportional representation. Is this the last call for FPTP in Canada?

Sabine McGinley is a Communications Placement Student for the ERS, from the University of Nottingham.