Latest news with #votingreform
The Guardian
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Even the Tories now admit that our electoral system is toxic. When will Labour have the guts to fix it?
'Gerrymandering!' cry those on the right. But the government's plan for voting reform, which will allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in the next general election, isn't to Labour's advantage. Voters of this age are unlikely to favour the incumbent government they have grown up with. Though lowering the voting age was a manifesto promise, real electoral reform was nowhere in the manifesto. Real reform would mean abolishing the broken, discredited, untrusted and unsafe first-past-the-post system. Keir Starmer often promises to put country before party. But as this year's British Social Attitudes survey found, only 12% of people trust governments to put the country's interest before their own party's. Labour can prove them wrong by fixing a fragile democracy in grave danger. It needs moral nerve to admit the system that elected it – allowing Labour to win 64% of seats with just 34% of votes – lacks legitimacy. In the words of the Electoral Reform Society, the 2024 result was 'not only the most disproportional election in British electoral history, but one of the most disproportional seen anywhere in the world'. The next election threatens to be far worse, when a vote below 30% could produce an unwanted winner as five or six parties get crushed into a two-party system. Voters know they need a louder voice: for the first time, 60% of them – including 52% of Conservative voters – support the introduction of proportional representation (PR), according to polling last month. Electoral reform could be their only salvation. This seismic shift in public attitudes has prompted some surprising shifts. Robert Colvile, head of the Centre for Policy Studies, the thinktank founded by Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph, writes in the Sunday Times: 'I've always hated PR … partly because its strongest supporters tend to be the kind of muesli-eating sandal-wearers who have never had a correct opinion in their lives.' But he adds: 'Cracks … have been appearing in my implacable dislike,' before concluding that electoral reform is something 'we really need' to do. Meanwhile, on the Conservative Home website, the former MP and Tory grandee Nigel Evans, after years of adamantly opposing reforms to the first-past-the-post system, now warns against 'sleepwalking' into 'a huge majority for one party but no real mandate'. He is calling for a royal commission to review the British voting system. Nigel Farage may become the outlier. He has always hammered first past the post for killing off new parties – despite winning 14% of votes in last year's election, Reform UK secured only five MPs. On the morning after the vote, Farage blasted: 'Our outdated first-past-the-post electoral system is not fit for purpose and we will campaign with anyone and everyone to change this election system.' But in May's council elections, Reform's 32% vote share was rewarded with 41% of the council seats up for grabs. The party also gained control of 10 councils. Now leading in the polls, Farage has spoken of an 'inversion point' at which first past the post 'becomes your friend'. He reckons Reform may be at that point. Expect him to now go silent on the issue (unless his ratings drop and he clambers back on to the campaign for proportional representation). As for Labour, its 2022 conference passed a non-binding motion to introduce PR in its first term. Alan Renwick, a UCL professor and deputy director of the Constitution Unit, warns that it's virtually unknown anywhere in the world for a governing party to introduce reforms against its own interests. But times have changed: Labour could regain trust with a country-not-party stand to prevent the perverse results it benefited from last time. The risks ahead are unprecedented. The psephologist and former YouGov president Peter Kellner has written in a number of excellent blogs that 'the prospect of a democratic disaster is real'. He was no electoral reformer – until now. Changing the voting system to prevent a Farage win could look like dirty politics. But here's what has changed. Kellner's historical analysis shows that British elections have always ended up with the government more people chose, even where results appeared contrary. Labour wasn't loved, but throwing out the Tories was the priority shared among most voters. Should Farage become prime minister, Kellner writes, 'for the first time in living memory, the country is likely to have a government that most people really don't want'. Reform scores first as the party that voters would never support. Farage is the leader whom most people want the least. Starmer is preferred by 44% of people when set against Farage, with the Reform leader backed by 29%. Yet despite Farage's unprecedented unpopularity, he could become prime minister with a 29% share of the vote. At this crisis point, it would be an unforgivable dereliction of duty should Labour fail to act. A proportional system gives fair seats for fair votes: there's no need to delve into the complicated mathematical formula of the de Hondt method to prove that. Kellner calls for the simplest safeguard against the most unpopular choice winning, the alternative vote, which is not a form of proportional representation but how all parties select leaders and candidates. Instead of marking an 'X' next to their preferred candidate, voters rank candidates in order. If none of them top 50%, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes are reassigned according to the second preferences expressed on the ballot papers. The process continues until one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote and, as the least hated, is declared the winner. Labour would have won the last election using this voting system, but not with a landslide. Alternative voting can be introduced instantly and doesn't ask MPs to vote for a system that would put their seats in jeopardy. Politically, it discourages extremism, because every party seeks other parties' second preferences. Kellner would introduce it now with a referendum only after people had tried it at the next election. Labour has the muscle, but does it dare act? The 2011 referendum on alternative voting was a fiasco, in which Dominic Cummings cut his Brexit teeth with a campaign of breathtaking mendacity. The government would certainly get overwhelming support for a royal commission consulting widely and reporting fast. They must act now, before our broken system causes a democratic calamity. Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
Telegraph
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Meddling with the voting age will only harm trust in British democracy
SIR – Labour really must be scared of Reform UK. Last week it announced that mayoral elections will move to a 'supplementary vote' from the current first-past-the-post system ('Mayoral vote overhaul will favour Labour', report, July 13). Now it has announced that voting will be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds ( July 17). Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, says: 'For too long public trust in our democracy has been damaged.' It will be damaged further by the Government meddling with elections. Roger Gentry Weavering, Kent SIR – As our Prime Minister announces that he will give 16-year-olds the vote, I look back to my 16th year and shudder at my stupidity. It was only four years later, in 1979, that I voted in my first general election. Fortunately I chose the right candidate. Simon Perks Poughill, Devon SIR – If 16-year-olds are deemed sufficiently mature to be enfranchised, this has wider implications. They should also be considered old enough to drive a car, pay adult fares on public transport, buy alcohol and tobacco, be tried in an adult court – and, if convicted, be sent to an adult prison. Without such changes, Labour's plan can only be seen as an attempt to garner votes at the next general election. Dr Alf Crossman Rudgwick, West Sussex SIR – Sir Keir Starmer argues that, as 16-year-olds are old enough to work and pay tax, they are entitled to a say over how those taxes are spent. Does this imply that those who choose not to work and do not pay tax should not be able to vote? John D Frew Ipswich, Suffolk SIR – This move will give disproportionate political power to teachers. I know of a case where a teacher was indoctrinated with far-Left views while at training college and now works at a state school. There must be many other such cases. Scary. Keith Ferris Maidstone, Kent SIR – If Labour is to lower the voting age to 16, the school curriculum must be adapted so that it fully prepares pupils for their new civic responsibility. Schools are already required to teach pupils about the democratic process – but they will need a firmer grasp of the political landscape, rather than just a theoretical one. This does not mean that teachers should engage in party-political instruction. It does, however, require a more purposeful approach to political literacy. Young voters must be able to assess claims, interrogate sources and evaluate policies with discernment. Dr Millan Sachania Chertsey, Surrey
Yahoo
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Changes made to Pennsylvania's provisional ballot envelopes
(WHTM) — The Department of State has announced changes to Pennsylvania's provisional ballot envelopes. Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt announced that the Department of State has redesigned Pennsylvania's provisional ballot envelopes to improve legibility and increase user-friendliness. 'Every registered voter in our Commonwealth should have the opportunity to cast their vote and make their voice heard in each election,' Schmidt said during a press conference in Philadelphia. 'We believe these changes to the provisional ballot envelopes will have a positive impact, just as the changes we made to mail ballot materials two years ago did.' In 2023, the Shapiro Administration redesigned Pennsylvania mail ballots and materials, which contributed to a 57% decrease in mail ballot rejections during the 2024 general election. 29.12% of provisional ballots were rejected, with the most common reason being that the voter was not registered, and the second being an incomplete ballot envelope. Schmidt says it received feedback from county elections officials across Pennsylvania who mentioned the need for enhanced usability for voters and poll workers. In response, the Department featured a new layout that clearly instructs voters which fields they must fill out, including highlighting the two places where the envelope must be signed. 2025_provisional_ballot_envelope_new-1-2Download The new envelopes also streamline the process for election workers, identifying which fields they need to complete before and after the voter completes their provisional ballot. 'The redesign of the ballot envelope simplifies the process of voting provisionally, and that means fewer errors and fewer rejected ballots,' said Omar Sabir, Chairman of the Philadelphia City Commissioners. 'It's an important part of ensuring that every eligible vote gets counted, and we're proud to lead this multi-county effort alongside our partners at the Department of State.' Schmidt said he expects counties to use the new materials in the 2025 general election. The Department is offering grant money to counties that choose to use the new envelopes to help counties with the cost of replacing their current provisional ballot envelopes. For more information on voting in Pennsylvania, including mail and provisional ballots, call the Department of State's year-round voter hotline at 1-877-VOTESPA or visit their website. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Telegraph
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Labour's shameful electoral manipulations have doomed the capital
Sir Keir Starmer appears to be learning from his party's newfound unpopularity. Having watched Labour slide in the polls and Reform and rival Left-wing parties surge, the Government now seems to be taking steps to ward off potential electoral setbacks. Regrettably, however, rather than simply governing well, its choice of tactic appears to be constitutional tweaks that benefit its candidates. The somewhat misleadingly named 'English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill' is set to scrap the use of first past the post voting in mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections, replacing the system with the 'Supplementary Vote' used before 2022. Before its reintroduction, we should recall why this system was abandoned in the first place. No voting system is perfect, but the 2021 London Mayoral election saw 114,000 votes – 5 per cent of the total – rejected as voters appeared to be confused by an overly complicated system. In other words, a Bill supposedly intended to 'empower' voters will do so by introducing a system that is likely to mean that a large number accidentally lose their say – and, indeed, in a manner which the Labour Party seems curiously uninterested in introducing for Westminster seats, where it benefits from the division of votes between the Conservatives and Reform. It is difficult not to suspect that this move, instead, reflects growing concern over the potential for a Corbyn-style candidate to derail Labour's attempt to secure yet another victory in London's Mayoral election. This would be a setback for a capital that has suffered under the last decade of Sadiq Khan's misrule. A culture of arrogance and entitlement in City Hall has seen standards slip, from the woeful performance of the Metropolitan Police to the leadership of Transport for London, which accused public-spirited campaigners of daubing graffiti on trains they had filmed themselves cleaning. The imposition of the Ulez expansion and the generalised war on cars has coincided with a 10-year high in store closures across the capital, this year's Wimbledon tournament being branded an 'international embarrassment' as London's transport system has failed to cope, and rampant fare-dodging – with Robert Jenrick seemingly doing more to combat the problem in his spare time than the Mayor in his years in office. The costs of these failures are borne by Londoners, those who commute into the city, and those who visit it. So, too, are the costs of the inflated salaries of Mr Khan and his senior staff. London deserves better, and the opportunity to obtain it. Labour's shameful manipulations may well deny it the chance.
New York Times
09-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
A Primer on Primaries for New Yorkers
Good morning. It's Wednesday. Today we'll look at how open primaries would work in New York City, as a special panel appointed by Mayor Eric Adams considers the idea. New York City's mayoral race has certainly been eventful to say the least. After Zohran Mamdani's primary win, some Democrats are strategizing to find ways to defeat him. And a city panel is considering overhauling the whole primary system. Let's get into it. A special city panel appointed by Mayor Eric Adams is considering asking voters to approve an open primary system to allow those who aren't registered with a party to vote in primary elections, according to my colleague Emma Fitzsimmons. The panel, a charter revision commission, released a 135-page report outlining the proposal, along with several others that could be on the ballot in November. New Yorkers may be wondering, what's with all these changes? Ranked-choice voting came on the scene in 2021. If the panel places an open primary system on the ballot in November and voters approve it, it would take effect in 2029. Hold tight, there's more. The charter commission is also considering moving elections to even years to align with presidential elections. If a majority of voters approve that proposal, it would require a change to the State Constitution. Right now, only New Yorkers who are registered as Democrat and Republican are able to vote in New York City primaries, and only in their party's primary. The open primary would allow all registered voters to cast their ballots, and the top two candidates would battle it out in the general election. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
