If ‘all voices are equal’, what about all votes?

Let me start by saying this: I agree with Stella.

In June, our MP wrote in the Guardian, ‘In a democracy, all voices must be equal.’ She was writing about her proposed amendment to the Representation of the People Bill, which would put a cap on political donations, echoing calls made by campaigns like the brilliant Clean Up Westminster.

And I agree with her on that.

But if the principle that all voices must be equal should apply to how political parties are funded, shouldn’t it also apply to the most basic element of our democracy: the vote?

In 2024, Starmer’s Labour won nearly two thirds of the seats in Parliament – based on barely one third of the votes. Labour assumed an enormous majority, despite the fact it had minority support in the country.

Such rank unfairness only gives fuel to the idea that the system isn’t built to serve us, the voters of Britain, but to preserve an-outdated system.

That two-party system is shattered: this year’s local elections in Waltham Forest were a clear demonstration of that. Yet the current First Past The Post system is more likely to return a stonking majority to one party on a tiny share of the vote – sidelining millions of voters, including 40% of voters in Walthamstow.

This isn’t a one-off or passing trend, either. On three occasions over the last century, the party with the most votes did not get the most seats. And, in fact, over the same period only once has a party won a majority with more than 50% of the votes - back in 1931.

That means, every single election, the majority of people are voiceless, their views systematically excluded from shaping who represents us. Little wonder people are losing faith in public institutions.

Now installed at Number 10, Andy Burnham has the chance to change this, to put his faith in the people of the UK by committing to a system of fair, equal votes. He would have strong support from Labour Party members, who backed it before the last election and in a recent poll by Survation for LabourList, which found that two thirds of Labour members would support a shift away from first-past-the-post in favour of proportional representation (PR).

Tony Blair also promised to push forward towards a PR system – where the number of seats in Parliament reflects the share of votes a party gets from the people – when he was elected in 1997. He then forgot about that pledge when he got into power.

A proportionate electoral system would be a big step forward in restoring people’s faith in our proud democracy.

It would mean everyone’s vote carrying the same weight, rather than millions feeling alienated and ignored. It would mean a Parliament that reflects the country, rather than seeing huge swings based on tiny changes in the vote. And it would mean politicians being incentivised to find common ground, rather than stoke division; to work together to solutions that serve the whole country, rather than merely pandering to their own narrow base.

In the past, some have said that this is a self-serving policy for the Liberal Democrats, but it’s not: in the last local elections, the party’s share of the vote was 12.2% and it won roughly the same share of seats: 11.4%. In fact, in the last local elections, the Liberal Democrats in Richmond won 100% of the seats with 51% of the vote, so a proportional system would actually have meant fewer seats for the party.

The case for a fair electoral system should never be about which party would benefit or otherwise.
The main reason to support a fairer electoral system is just that: it is fairer.

The Liberal Democrats support PR because it would ensure that everyone’s vote is worth the same, and yes, that all voices are equal.

Nick Martlew is a Walthamstow resident and an Executive Committee Member of Waltham Forest Liberal Democrats.