Voting system for Mayors and PCCs
We welcome the reversal of the previous government’s decision to move to First Past The Post (FPTP) for Mayoral and Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) elections.
Ever since the move to FPTP was announced, we have made the case that there is a high risk of powerful (increasingly powerful in the case of Strategic Authority Mayors) figures being elected with weak mandates and the consequent danger that their legitimacy is called into question when they need to make important decisions affecting their areas.
On 1 May 2025, under FPTP, two Strategic Authority mayors were elected with the support of fewer than 30% of those who voted. Around three-quarters of people who cast a vote in these elections did not vote for the winning candidate.
Prior to the introduction of FPTP, across twenty-one Strategic Authority mayoral elections (including elections for the Greater London Mayor) held under the preferential, Supplementary Vote (SV) electoral system, in all but one contest, the winning candidate received the support of at least 44% of those who voted, either via a first or second preference vote. This level of support represents a much more solid mandate for mayors to take up their positions.
Although SV, where voters can express a first and second preference, is much better than FPTP, an even better system for the election of Mayors and PCCs would be Alternative Vote (AV).
While AV is not a proportional system, it is the best option when it comes to the election of individual office holders such as mayors. In these scenarios it is the closest match to our preferred Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system, as seen in Scottish local elections. Standard Scottish local authority elections are contested in multi-member wards, under STV. For local authority by-elections, however, where just one candidate is to be elected, AV is used.
Under AV, voters can express a preference for as many or as few as the candidates as they wish, simply by marking ‘1; 2; 3 etc’ on their ballot paper.
If a candidate obtains more than 50% of first preference votes, they are elected. If no candidate reaches this threshold, the person with the fewest votes is eliminated and the second preferences of the voters who supported the eliminated candidate are transferred to the relevant remaining candidates. This process is repeated until one candidate reaches the threshold and is declared the winner.
AV is superior to SV in that it allows voters to express a wider range of preferences; it reduces the need for voters to consider tactical voting; it reduces the likelihood of wasted votes; and it would mean mayors being elected with as strong a mandate as possible from the local electorate.
English local government voting system
The government’s planned reorganisation of English local authorities, with unitary authorities set to be rolled out across the country, provides an excellent opportunity to examine how councillors are elected in England.
The use of First Past The Post at local authority level often results in councils that do not reflect voters’ preferences, particularly in this age of multi-party politics. At the local elections held on 1 May 2025, Reform UK won overall control of numerous local authorities without securing the backing of the majority of local voters. In West Northamptonshire, for example, Reform UK won a majority of council seats (55.3%) from just 28.3% of votes cast across the area. It cannot be right for one party to have full control of a council and the important responsibilities that come with this, when almost three-quarters of voters have not shown any backing for that party.
The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a voting system very well suited to ensuring that voters preferences are properly reflected on local councils and it is already in use for local elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland. As with AV, the system is very simple for voters, allowing them to express a preference for as many or as few as the candidates as they wish, simply by marking ‘1; 2; 3 etc’ on their ballot paper.
Rather than one person representing everyone in an area, a number of representatives are elected. This situation already applies across much of English local government, with many wards electing three councillors.
Under STV, the persons elected to represent a ward are much more likely to represent the diversity of opinion within a ward than is the case under FPTP. At council level, STV makes it far less likely that single parties will earn underserved majorities based on as little as a third of votes.
The introduction of STV for English local council elections should be included in the English Devolution & Community Empowerment Bill, in a similar way that the Labour-led Scottish government legislated for the use of STV for Scottish local elections in the mid-2000s.
Neighbourhood governance
The Guidance notes to the Bill indicate that the government ‘will introduce a requirement on all local authorities, in England, to establish effective neighbourhood governance’, with the ‘main goal…to move decision-making closer to residents, so decisions are made by people who understand local needs’.
The details of the obligations on local authorities will be set out in regulations that will be made after the Bill is in force, following a government review that will ‘include speaking to the sector to ensure they have the opportunity to contribute and share existing good practice’.
Given that local authority unitarisation will create new councils covering much larger areas than many current district councils, there is a danger that some voters may come to feel further away from local democracy. It is therefore vital that neighbourhood governance is treated as an important part of this legislation and not merely an after-thought.
Local people should have the opportunity to genuinely engage with how neighbourhood governance will work in their communities.