At election time, millions of us arrive at the polling station in a conflicted state of mind – do I vote for the party I most believe in, or do I vote tactically to influence the result? It’s a choice that feels less like democracy and more like damage control.
When the system nudges voters to think toward what they believe to be the “least bad” option, it’s worth asking whether the problem truly lies with the voting system itself.
The problem with tactical voting
Voting ‘tactically’ is when someone backs a candidate they wouldn’t usually support, with the aim of stopping another candidate from coming out on top. For instance, if your preferred party has little chance of winning in your constituency, you might instead choose the candidate you like best among those more likely to succeed.
The difficulty is that this pushes voters towards options that don’t fully reflect their views or values. With the collapse in support of the old two parties, it can also be unclear who is actually in the strongest position to win in your area, making tactical decisions uncertain at best. Voters are left trying to predict the behaviour of others, often relying on past election results or imperfect polling.
Often, people hold their noses and vote, not for the party they most want to support but for the one they perceive as most likely to stop another party from winning in their area. But that’s not meaningful choice, it’s a system forcing people into calculation over conviction.
A symptom of a broken system
Sadly, this kind of voting behaviour is a natural consequence of the First Past the Post system. Because only one candidate is elected in each constituency, all the votes towards other candidates will have no impact on parliament.
First Past the Post is designed for a situation in which two big parties dominate the political scene. But Britain is no longer a two-party country, and more and more evidence is building to show that our party choices across the UK are more fragmented than ever.
Unfortunately, our outdated system simply cannot cope with how people are voting in 2026. The straitjacket of First Past the Post does not allow voters to express their democratic choice and be safe in the knowledge that this will be properly reflected in the electoral outcome.
A situation where three, four, five or even six parties are in contention and only one position is available, is a recipe for random and chaotic results. In 2024 we saw 10 MPs elected with the support of less than a third of voters, at the next election who knows how low that suport will go. So, we learn to play the game. We study tactical voting websites. We ask, “Who can actually win here?” instead of “Who do I actually support?” And in seat after seat, we end up voting for the least bad option.
When a leaflet claims that ‘only their candidate can win here’, it’s voters who are losing.
At the last general election in 2024, tactical voting was again prevalent. In marginal seats across the country, millions voted to block rather than to back. In our post-election survey, we found that over a quarter (28%) of people indicated they had opted for a tactical vote.
There is a better way
People shouldn’t have to feel unsure on who they want to support. We shouldn’t continue to be let down by a system that doesn’t give them the representation they deserve.
Under a proportional voting system, like the Single Transferable Vote, seats in parliament reflect how people actually vote. This means that if a party wins 30% of the vote, it’ll get roughly 30% of the seats. There’s no need to guess who is “best placed” to win locally, or to abandon your preferred choice to block another. You can vote for what you believe in, and you know it will be reflected in the result.
Imagine elections where the question isn’t “Who can I tolerate?” but “Who do I truly support?” Imagine a parliament that mirrors the diversity of views across the country, rather than flattening them into artificial majorities. This isn’t an abstract ideal – it’s what proportional representation is all about.
Moving beyond tactical voting isn’t just about convenience; it’s about restoring trust. When people see their vote translated into representation, they’re more likely to feel that politics works for them. It’s time to end the politics of tactical voting – and start building a democracy that reflects what people really think, not what they feel forced to do.
Do you agree? Add your name to our call for a fairer voting system that would end tactical voting.
Add your name to our call →