Sometimes change arrives with fanfare. Sometimes it arrives quietly, after years of argument, delay and unfinished business.

This week, the final hereditary peers lost their automatic right to sit and vote in the House of Lords, bringing an end to one of the most indefensible features of the UK constitution. Around 92 hereditary peers had remained in the chamber since the partial reforms of 1999, when hundreds more were removed, but a temporary compromise left a rump in place. That temporary measure lasted more than a quarter of a century.

Yet another compromise was required to finally finish the job. 15 Conservative hereditary peers and some crossbenchers will be waltzing back into the chamber with newly printed Life Peer passes.

A seat in Parliament should not be inherited

No one should have a role in making our laws because of who their parents were. In a modern democracy, the right to sit in parliament should come from the public. It should not be passed down like a family heirloom.

Yet for decades, the House of Lords retained exactly that logic. Some people could sit in Parliament not because voters chose them, nor because they were independently selected, but because they inherited a title, and were ‘elected’ by aristocrats with the same political party membership. That system belonged to another age.

The Electoral Reform Society has long campaigned for this moment

The Electoral Reform Society has argued for years that hereditary legislators have no place in a democratic system.

We said it when reform stalled. We said it when governments kicked the issue into the long grass. And we said it when defenders of the status quo insisted that an outdated compromise was good enough.

They were wrong.

Ending hereditary peers’ political power is not radical. It removes a glaring symbol of privilege from the heart of Parliament.

This is progress, but not the finish line

We should celebrate this step. But we should also be honest about what it does and does not solve.

Removing hereditary peers does not make the House of Lords democratic. It remains an unelected chamber dominated by political appointments, dodgy donors and pals of past prime ministers. Prime ministers still wield huge influence over who gets a seat, and the public still get no direct say over who scrutinises legislation in their name. We’ve seen that brought to life in the Mandelson scandal. One indefensible route into the Lords has closed. Others remain deeply flawed.

What comes next for the House of Lords

Now the obvious question follows: if hereditary peers are gone, what should replace the system that remains?

The Electoral Reform Society’s answer has long been clear. We need a second chamber that is smaller, more representative, and democratically legitimate. That means moving away from patronage and towards a system where the public have a meaningful voice.

There are different ways to design that chamber. But all of them would be better than clinging to an appointments system swollen by political favour.

Back in 1999, the removal of most hereditary peers was presented as the first stage of wider reform. Instead, the country was left with a half-finished settlement for decades.

This week closes that chapter.

It is welcome progress, and those who campaigned for years to make it happen should feel vindicated. But if we stop here, we risk repeating the same mistake: treating one reform as if it were the final destination. The government have promised a second stage to their programme of reform in the House of Lords, they can’t abandon that pledge.

Now let us build a House of Lords worthy of a modern democracy.

Add your name to our call on the government to finish the job

Add your name

Discussions around changing the voting system often refer to Westminster, yet the same problems that stifle the government of the UK apply at a much more local level. Just like in Parliament, councils across England and Wales use the First Past the Post system, or slight variations of it. And just like in Parliament, councils rarely reflect how their local residents voted.

The 2022 local elections in Lewisham, for instance, saw Labour win every single councillor on just over half the vote. The same year, also in London, the Conservatives won 70.0% of seats on Kensington & Chelsea Council, from 44% of votes and the Liberal Democrats won 89% of seats on St Albans Council, in Hertfordshire, from 48% of votes.

At the Electoral Reform Society, we want to see local councils that more closely reflect how their local areas voted – a party on half the vote should get roughly half the seats. This isn’t just an issue of fairness to all the residents who aren’t being represented currently, though; it would have a real impact on how our local councils function.

Local councils should be responsive to voters

When local councils don’t reflect how local people voted, changes to how people vote don’t always have an impact on the council.

Democracy works when elections function as a feedback loop between voters and their representatives. If the streets are getting cleaner and the quality of social care is improving in your local area, the party in charge might expect to increase their vote share and win more councillors to continue their good work. Likewise, if there are piles of fly-tipped waste on every corner and constant scandals at the council, their vote share might drop, and they start to lose councillors

But this isn’t how First Past the Post works.

To get elected under First Past the Post, the candidate needs to get one more vote than the person in second place. Say your area is improving and your councillor’s vote share increases – but as they have already won, this increase makes no difference to the make-up of the council. Say your neighbourhood is getting worse and their vote share goes down – as long as they still have one vote more than the person in second place, this drop in support also makes no difference.

Rather than a responsive ebb and flow, you get parties that slowly hollow out support before collapsing. While it might feel satisfying for their opponents, replacing one tranche of experienced councillors all at once with a whole new set of inexperienced ones inevitably will impact how the council functions.

Councillors shouldn’t mark their own homework

The other impact of one party winning the bulk of seats on a minority of the vote, is that councillors scrutinise each other on council decisions and annual budgets. When the scrutiny committee is dominated by councillors of the same party as the people they are scrutinising, there is little incentive to look too deeply into councillors’ behaviour.

Likewise, while it might be easy to pass a council budget when one party is in overall control, there is little incentive for that budget to be properly scrutinised. We are not talking about small sums of money here either; Birmingham City Council set a £4.4 billion budget in 2026, and even smaller councils are spending hundreds of millions of pounds a year. Councils need enough opposition councillors to properly scrutinise this spending.

The tried and tested alternative

In local elections across England and Wales, some people live in wards that elect a single councillor while others have two or three. Yet, due to First Past the Post the same party will typically pick up all the seats. What if, rather than going to the single party with the most votes, these seats represented the spread of opinion in the ward? A councillor who is doing a good job and saw their vote share increase could get a colleague from the same party elected to carry on their work. Likewise, if a party were losing support, they could go down from two to one councillor – without having to wait for their party to collapse off a cliff.

This is how local elections have worked in Scotland since 2007. They use a system called the Single Transferable Vote that means the political make-up of councils change in response to voters, and councillors have to work together for their local area, rather than rubberstamping a budget from one party.

The question is why England and Wales should continue to settle for less.

Add your name to our call for local elections in England to match how we vote

Add your name today

This week, MPs and peers from across the political spectrum announced plans to form a new all-party parliamentary group on ‘wholesale’ Lords reform. The trigger was the very real sight of unelected peers using obscure procedures to block legislation, and the continuing fallout from the Peter Mandelson affair.

With members from all the main parties, and both the house of Lord and the Commons, the group will be co-chaired by Labour’s Simon Opher MP and the Conservative’s Kit Malthouse MP. Kit Malthouse said “When arcane procedures can be used to defy the will not only of the elected chamber, but also the clearly expressed views of a large majority of the public, it is a crisis confronting our democracy that can’t be ignored.”

The House of Lords is a chamber without consequences

The Mandelson case exposes a problem that has long been hiding in plain sight. As we revealed last week, even when a peer resigns the House, they do not lose the trappings of their title. At present, the only way for a peer to lose their lofty stylings is an act of parliament.

Peers who bring parliament into disrepute can simply step back, while continuing to benefit from the status that comes with a title.

That is why so many cases end in quiet resignation, rather than meaningful consequence. No longer attending the House for parliamentary business, they have more time to focus on their own business interests. “Need a Lord on the board?” as Mandelson asked of Epstein in one email. Public office is treated less like a position of trust, and more like a private members club.

Powerful peers without a public mandate

It’s not just individual bad behaviour that has inspired the new group to form. The House of Lords is meant to revise and scrutinise legislation. It is not meant to veto the will of the Commons through procedural games. Yet, in recent months, several government bills have been facing extended scrutiny in the House of Lords. While careful examination of legislation is an important part of parliamentary work, some of these delays look to campaigners less like careful scrutiny and more like deliberate obstruction.

Peers have also been in the headlines in the past few months for their interventions and amendments to hugely significant legislation such as the government’s Employment Rights Bill and the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

We don’t have a view on whether the House of Lords is doing the right thing in delaying these bills. But we firmly think that the public should be able to hold legislators accountable for their decisions. They have even been holding up their own reform in the two-page House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill.

The limits of voluntary standards

Rather than public accountability, we have a system based on trust and goodwill.

Appointments are scrutinised by a commission that exists by convention, not statute – and can simply be ignored. Behaviour is regulated by fellow peers who punish breaches by barring miscreants from the chamber, and the subsidised bars and restaurants. Resignations are voluntary. Sanctions are rare. This creates a system where the rules look firm, but feel optional.

When standards depend on people choosing to follow them, they stop being standards at all.

Lords should be held accountable by the British public

It should be no surprise that members of the House of Lords act as they please. At the moment, the House of Lords combines significant influence with weak accountability. Most members are appointed by the Prime Minister. They serve for life. And removing peers is harder than it should ever be.

If we want a second chamber that focuses on the job in hand, not the one they might get in future, they need to know that they will be held accountable by the public for their decisions. We need regular elections, so the public are in the driving seat. Anything less invites repeat crises.

So, it’s good to see the formation of this APPG, as the government need to realise how important their commitments to House of Lords reform are.

The question is no longer whether reform is needed. It is whether parliament is willing to move beyond half-measures and voluntary restraint. The fact that the House of Lords is dragging their heels on the simple and popular removal of the remaining hereditary peers, makes the case for why the government can’t allow them to win.

Add your name to our call for an elected House of Lords

Add your name

I’m pretty glad that 12-year-olds aren’t allowed to drive buses. We have age restrictions on many things for pretty good reasons in the UK, and preventing children from careering down the high street in a 15-tonne vehicle is a particularly good one.

Age restrictions can protect the public, they can protect the individual from themselves – but some are not about protection at all.

Voting for instance is not like smoking or drinking. Treating it as such misunderstands why we place age limits on harmful activities in the first place, and why none of those reasons apply when we talk about democratic participation.

As the government’s upcoming Elections Bill is set to expand the franchise for all elections to 16, here is why voting isn’t like drinking and smoking.

Why we restrict smoking and drinking

We place age limits on smoking and drinking because these activities carry clear, well-evidenced risks. They damage health. They impair judgement. They can create dependency. The earlier someone starts, the greater the long-term harm.

Crucially, these risks are not abstract. They are biological and measurable. Alcohol affects brain development. Tobacco causes lung cancer. Even when young people understand the risks, we still accept that the potential for harm is high enough to justify legal limits.

We do not apply age restrictions lightly. We reserve them for activities where harm is likely, lasting and difficult to undo.

Voting does not meet any of these criteria.

Voting does not harm the voter

16- and 17-year-olds already have the vote for devolved elections in Scotland and Wales. There is no evidence that voting damages a young person’s development. It does not impair judgement. People don’t start hunting down riskier elections to take part in to replicate the thrill of their first vote.

If a 16-year-old votes in an election, nothing bad happens to them because of the act itself. They do not suffer health consequences. If they later change their mind, they are free to do so. Voting is reversible in a way smoking and drinking are not.

In fact, it would be strange to not change your mind over the years, as your personal circumstances change. Beliefs evolve. Priorities shift. That is part of political life at every age.

The only proven long-term effect of early voting is positive. People who vote when they are young are more likely to continue voting throughout their lives. Participation builds habit.

The risk argument falls apart

“Ah!”, the critics might cry, but they can harm themselves, and the rest of us. Around the word there are examples of countries that voted in governments that went on to harm their countries and, in some cases, democracy itself.

This argument quickly falls apart though when you look at the numbers. Sixteen and 17-year-olds only make up 2% of the electorate and won’t all vote in the same direction, so some will cancel each other out. Nobody will be winning election by appealing to just 16 and 17-year-olds – but candidates will have to take their lives into account when campaigning. While a few seats with very slim majorities could be decided by the votes of 16 and 17-year-olds, they are only in these positions as all the other voters have put them there. You could pick any group of voters, when majorities are in double figures, and claim they are the key group who can pick the winner.

This argument that young people might vote “badly” though is rarely applied consistently.

We do not remove the vote from adults who are misinformed, impulsive or angry. We do not require economic literacy tests, because we recognise that democracy means trusting people to make their own choices, even when we disagree with them.

Once we accept that voting is a right rather than a reward, the argument changes. The question is no longer whether 16-year-olds always get it right. It is whether they are affected by political decisions and entitled to a say. The answer is clearly yes.

Building a democracy fit for the future

Democracy is not safer when fewer people participate. It is weaker. When large groups are locked out, policies drift away from their needs. Services erode. Trust collapses.

Young people feel this acutely. Decisions about education, housing, migration and climate policy will shape their futures far longer than those of older voters. Yet they are expected to wait on the sidelines. The trend is towards more and more things being restricted for younger people, well, voting can be one area where younger people are allowed to step up to responsibility.

When we don’t want people to pick up an activity, we don’t let them start until they are 18.  Sixteen-year-olds do not need protecting from voting. They need access to it.

Add your name to our call to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds

Add your name today

We live in a country where each constituency has a single MP. Yet for most people this means the MP who “represents” them in parliament doesn’t share their politics, didn’t win a majority of the vote in their local area, and was chosen by a tiny handful of party insiders long before election day.

In the 2024 General Election, the majority of people found themselves with an MP they didn’t vote for. That’s 57.8% or 16.6 million people represented by someone they didn’t want. In fact, Labour is the only party where a majority of their voters have an MP they voted for. It’s no surprise that people feel like politicians don’t listen.

While these MPs will, no doubt, try their best to help their constituents and stand up for their local areas. But when it comes to more political issues, these MPs will be marching into the voting lobbies along party lines. But it’s precisely to influence national political issues that we elect MPs in the first place.

MPs without majority support are the norm

In the 2024 general election, around 85% of MPs were elected on less than half the vote. That’s 554 constituencies where the majority of people wanted someone else to be the MP – this is compared to 229 in 2019. It gets worse though, 266 constituencies (41% of all seats) elected their representative on less than 40%. The record for lowest vote share was an incredible 26.7% – barely over a quarter of voters.

That 26.5% vote share was made possible in South West Norfolk as the right wing vote was split three ways, between Reform, the Conservatives and an Independent Conservative. Together, those three won 62% of the vote, compared to the Labour candidate’s 26.7%. It’s pretty clear voters wanted a right-wing MP, yet as the vote was split three ways, and Labour won the seat.

Candidates are chosen from the top down

But who chooses the candidates? Before voters even get a say, party HQs or small groups of local activists have already decided who stands. Sometimes candidates are parachuted in from outside the area, hand-picked for loyalty to the leadership or their faction.

While all the political parties contain a broad range of views, the rest of us get one candidate per major party, and one shot at choosing between them. You can’t say, “I like this party but prefer their other candidate.” You can’t choose between shades of opinion.

It doesn’t have to be like this

One MP can never represent the full range of political opinions in an area. Under fairer, proportional, voting systems like the Single Transferable Vote, things look very different.

Instead of one MP per area, you elect a small team of MPs to represent a larger region. On the ballot paper you number the candidates in order, across or within parties, so you can choose who best reflects your values.

If you like a party but not its chosen candidate, you can back someone else from the same party. And because several MPs represent each area, almost everyone ends up with at least one MP they actually voted for. Someone they can turn to and say, “You speak for me.”

When Scotland changed to the Single Transferable Vote for Scottish elections, the number of people who ended up with a councillor they voted for jumped to 75%.

The Single Transferable Vote is a tried and tested system that works

First Past the Post gives power to party HQs and factional insiders. It narrows choice and locks millions out of meaningful representation.

The Single Transferable Vote gives that power back to voters. It creates competition within parties, encourages cooperation across them, and ensures that every voice has a chance to be heard.

It’s time we stopped pretending that one MP for everyone is working for anyone.

Add your name to our call for a fairly elected parliament

Join our call for proportional representation

In the UK today, there is still no legal limit on how much a single donor can give to a political party each year. That simple fact shapes our politics in profound ways. When unlimited money flows into campaigns from a small group of exceptionally wealthy individuals, it becomes harder for the rest of us to get our voices heard.

Introducing a clear cap on political donations is one of the most effective steps we could take to rebuild trust. With the upcoming Elections Bill, the government has an opportunity to put a donations cap into law.

The question is not whether to cap donations, but where the cap should be set. To understand what is at stake, it helps to look at three possible levels: a high cap of £1,000,000, a mid-level cap of £100,000 and a lower cap of £10,000.

Politics should never be a personal project for the ultra-rich

Setting a donation cap as high as £1,000,000 per year may seem ludicrously generous. In some ways, that is the point. It would still allow political parties to receive sizeable contributions, but it would put a clear boundary around the influence of the very wealthiest citizens.

In recent years, donations of over a million pounds have become common place. Just today, Reform UK were given £9,000,000 by Christopher Harborne, their largest single donation ever, and the largest donation ever from a living donor. The largest single donation ever was £10,000,000 for the Conservatives from Lord John Sainsbury’s will in 2023. The largest donation for the Liberal Democrats was £8,000,000 from Lord David Sainsbury in 2019, while Labour’s was £4,000,000 from Quadrature Capital Ltd in 2024.

With no ceiling at all on how much a wealthy person could give, even larger donations are permissible. Under a cap like this, no individual could single-handedly bankroll a party. That matters. It stops political parties becoming personal vehicles for those who can afford to pour vast sums into the system, and treat political parties like just another yacht or island.

We can reduce elite influence

A cap at £100,000 changes the dynamic more significantly. Contributions at this level can still be generous, but they are no longer so large that a party can revolve around a handful of donors on first name terms with the party leaders.

Under a £100,000 cap, parties would need a broader donor base. This is a model that begins to rebalance power. It reduces the risk that policy priorities are driven by the financial interests of a small elite, and instead are focused on the health of the broader economy. It is a step towards a healthier political culture.

Towards a fairer democracy

The Committee on Standards in Public Life has previously recommended a £10,000 cap on donations from any individual or organisation in any year. Let’s be blunt, the vast majority of people would not be able to donate this kind of money. But a cap of £10,000 would end the era in which political parties can rely on rich benefactors.

That means engaging with more people, building membership and relying less on the biggest cheques. When parties depend on a wider pool of supporters, their incentives change. They must spend more time listening and responding to the concerns of ordinary voters, not just those who can afford to give more.

As Parliament considers reforms to electoral law, this is the moment to commit to a donation cap – meaningful reform starts with limiting how much any one donor can give.

Add your name to demand the Elections Bill includes a donation cap

A million pounds here, a few hundred thousand there. Life-changing sums for most of us. Yet in the world of political finance, these are the figures some individuals can casually drop into party coffers.

It should never become normal for that kind of money to set the political weather. But increasingly, it is.

People donate large sums because they see it as a good investment. Sometimes it’s about business interests. Sometimes it’s about shaping the country to match their own ideals. But whatever the motive, one thing is clear: in a healthy democracy, no one should be able to buy a louder voice.

That’s why we have long argued for a cap on political donations.

Why unchecked donations are a problem

For years, the concern was simple enough: wealthy individuals could secure access, steer conversations, or help nudge a policy in a direction that suited them. That was already a problem.

But now a new dynamic is emerging. The ultra-wealthy are in the position not just to influence a political movement, but to bankroll one entirely. When one person can become the sole funder of a party or campaign, the balance breaks. Politics becomes less about what benefits society and more about what benefits the person writing the cheque.

A system that works for everyone

A donation cap is a straightforward safeguard. It stops any one person from dominating the finances of a party. It limits the risk of policy becoming a private commodity. And it helps bring politics back into the realm of shared interests rather than private leverage.

Other democracies already do this. They recognise that fairness isn’t automatic, it’s the result of rules designed to protect it. The UK should be no different.

The Elections Bill is a critical moment for change

The government is working on a new Elections Bill. This is a rare opportunity to build a system that reflects democratic values, not wealth and power.

We should be clear about what’s at stake. Without a cap, political parties can start to look like trophies, another yacht, another island, for those who can afford them. Influence becomes something to collect. That’s not how democracy should work.

Public opinion is firmly on our side: a poll earlier in the year found that 60% of people support a cap on political donations.

What we can do now

A donation cap is simple, fair, and long overdue. It protects parties. It protects voters. And it protects the principle that political power should be shared, not concentrated in the hands of those with the deepest pockets.

This is the moment to act. If you believe our politics should reflect all of us, not just a wealthy few, join us in calling for a donation cap to be included in the Elections Bill. Together, we can help build a system where everyone’s voice counts.

Add your name to demand donations caps in the Elections Bill

Britain’s First Past the Post system was designed for a two-party age. One that pretty much everyone agrees we no longer live in. Yet even when most people voted for one of the two big parties, we still saw MPs elected with some pretty fringe views.

Of course, one person’s disgruntled ranter is another’s principled truth-teller, and in a democracy everyone should be represented, as long as they support democracy itself. But, voters need to be able to make an informed choice. On top of this, MPs with fringe views should not be able to impose their values on the rest of us. How well does First Past the Post, a system that is supposed to prioritise the views of the majority, score on these two fronts?

One party, one candidate, no real choice

Fringe parties don’t need to run in elections to have MPs with extreme opinions in parliament. Each major party can only stand one candidate per seat. On paper, that sounds tidy. In practice, it means you’re stuck with whoever your local branch picks. You might support the party’s broad values, but you have no say over which version of those values you’re getting.

You could think you’re voting for a steady, mainstream representative, only to discover your MP is fixated on a single issue, out of touch with your priorities, or pushing ideas that most people in your community reject.

There’s no safety valve, no way to choose between candidates within your preferred party – beyond joining a party and devoting all your evenings to internal selection battles. You either back them, or you don’t vote for the party at all. That’s how First Past the Post locks voters in and lets people with fringe views slip in through the cracks.

Power without popular support

Since 1931, every single-party government has been formed with under half the votes cast. In 2024, Labour won a landslide with just over a third of the public behind it. That means millions of votes go unheard, and the winners don’t need to speak for the country as a whole, just for the sliver of it that happens to be concentrated in the right seats.

But First Past the Post doesn’t care how narrow or extreme a party’s agendas is for them to benefit. They don’t have to win over most of us; they just need to squeeze through in enough key constituencies. Under First Past the Post, power comes from geography, not genuine support.

As more parties become serious contenders, the vote share needed to get elected drops. With three parties level pegging in a constituency the winner needs just over a third of the vote, with four it’s just over a quarter. A recent poll has placed 5 parties over 15% in the polls.

Parties with an agenda the majority reject can win not because most people agree with them, but because enough others disagree with each other. It’s voters that get crushed under the landslide.

Real representation, real choice

Voters shouldn’t have a take it or leave it choice. The Single Transferable Vote (STV) system of proportional representation changes this completely. Instead of one candidate per party, you can choose between several.

That means if your preferred party puts up someone who doesn’t speak for you, you can back another candidate who does, without wasting your vote. It’s also proportional, so parties only get as many seats as their support warrants. It means that extremists can’t sneak in on a split vote. To win under STV, you need broad support, not a narrow slice of it.

First Past the Post hands power to the few. STV puts power back in the hands of voters. It encourages cooperation, rewards moderation, and ensures that every community has a genuine choice.

If we want a democracy that reflects who we are, not just who shouts loudest, it’s time to move to the Single Transferable Vote.

Add your name to our call for a fair, proportional voting system

Add your name

A high-stakes fight is underway in the United States over redrawing the constituencies for the House of Representatives in Washington, DC. One flashpoint is California’s Proposition 50, a ballot measure that passed today. Voters have decided to replace the state’s independent redistricting commission with maps drawn by the legislature, which are intentionally designed to favour the Democratic Party.

What is Proposition 50 and why it matters

Each state in the USA has the power to draw the boundaries for both their internal state elections and federal elections to the House of Representatives. While some states have given this power to an independent body, much like the UK’s independent boundary commissions, in others the work is done by the politicians themselves.

This means state level politicians have the power to change the make-up of the federal House of Representatives – which in turn makes life easier or harder for the President.

Under the current system, California uses a Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw constituencies for the House of Representatives, with rules meant to limit partisan bias. Proposition 50 would suspend that method temporarily. Starting in 2026, new maps drawn by the state legislature would take effect that are designed to get more Democrats elected. The Commission would resume its role only after the 2030 census.

Why would Californians choose to rig their own elections? Advocates argue it’s an emergency measure in response to what they call a power grab by Republicans in Texas, who recently redrew their maps in order to get more Republicans elected.

Analysts expect the new Californian maps could flip up to five seats to the Democrats in forthcoming House of Representatives election, offsetting some effects of the Texas gerrymander.

Gerrymandering is a fancy word for election rigging

Gerrymandering is the deliberate engineering of political advantage. Politicians choose their voters so they can decide the outcome of elections before a vote has been cast, turning the way elections are supposed to work upside down.

This can be done as so many voters in First Past the Post make no difference to the result. In every constituency, the votes that go to the candidates who aren’t elected go nowhere. But not every vote for the person elected makes a difference, either. They only needed one more vote than the second-place candidate to win the seat, so every vote they win beyond this level is surplus to requirements.

Politicians use these two issues to design their rigged maps. Voters for opposing parties are either packed into a few incredibly safe seats, so their votes are wasted as ‘surplus’, or they are spread out thinly into seats designed to ensure they come second everywhere. This is called ‘packing’ for the former and ‘cracking’ for the latter.

What does this mean for the UK?

The key difference in the UK is that constituencies are not designed by politicians themselves. The Boundary Commissions run an open process, with public feedback at each stage.

But in theory, hundreds of different constituency maps could be drawn, each resulting in a different parliamentary makeup. Where the lines go can directly affect who represents you and how many MPs each party has.

The Boundary Commissions do not intentionally pack and crack voters, instead drawing boundaries based on a set list of criteria, such as geographic features, local government boundaries and local ties. But these criteria still unintentionally pack some voters and crack others. The result is less extreme, but lines on the map are still deciding if you get an MP you voted for.

If we want what you think, to be more important than where you live, we need to solve the problem of so many votes having no impact on the result.

The answer to this is proportional representation. Proportional electoral systems, like the Single Transferable Vote, elect multiple MPs from larger constituencies. This ensures groups of MPs reflect the range of political opinion in the area. Rather than going to waste, votes go to get people elected.

Add your name to our call to make every vote matter

Add your name

For all the talk of “strong government,” the reality of single-party rule under First Past the Post (FPTP) often looks anything but. Behind the scenes, these governments can be paralysed by internal battles, faction against faction, each fighting not for the public’s priorities, but for control of the party machine.

We’ve seen it time and again. When one party holds most of the seats on less than half the votes, the supposed “majority” is fragile from the start. The real fights aren’t across the floor of the Commons, but inside the ruling party itself. It may look stable on paper, but inside it’s a house divided.

As we saw in the dying years of the last government, from leadership coups to reshuffle dramas, the energy that should go into governing too often gets burned up in managing factions. And because the system locks out alternative voices, these internal battles become the only outlet for political debate. Policy ends up shaped not by what the country wants, but by who’s winning inside the party.

A fragile “Majority”

It’s the rotten core of Westminster’s system: one party can dominate Parliament with barely a third of the national vote. That’s what happened in 2024, and it can happen again.

That doesn’t build strength, it builds tension. A party elected on a minority of votes has to constantly adjust to try and maintain the coalition that elected it, but each movement alienates one side. The result is a fragile coalition disguised as a single party, without the openness or accountability of a genuine coalition government.

When that coalition starts to splinter, there’s no transparent process for compromise. The public sees confusion and delay, not negotiation and resolution.

Popularity doesn’t equal power

Under First Past the Post, the power of a faction depends less on how popular its ideas are with voters, and more on how well it has captured the party’s internal machinery. The loudest internal bloc wins, not the one that speaks for most people.

That’s why major parties can drift so far from the centre of public opinion. The battles for control happen in smoke-filled committee rooms, not at the ballot box.

With Proportional Representation, the negotiations are public

Proportional representation (PR) doesn’t remove negotiation, it makes it public and democratic. Every party earns influence based on how many people actually vote for them. The horse-trading happens out in the open, not behind closed doors.

Under PR, strength in Parliament reflects support in the country. The parties talk to each other because they have to, and because voters told them to. The result is politics that rewards cooperation, not control.

It’s time for a system that works for all of us

We deserve a government that reflects the choices we make, not the failures of a voting system. Proportional representation gives us that. It’s fair, it’s transparent, and it works.

Add your name to our call for a fair, proportional voting system