Voting Reform and the local elections

No, not like that.

A week from now, we will largely know the results of the local elections. In terms of what I expect, it will be little different from Sam Freedman's excellent summary. For the Tories, it will be somewhere between awful and cataclysmic, for Labour disappointing, while third, fourth and beyond parties will likely come out with much to celebrate. Beyond that, there is another certainty – that these elections are likely to be the most prominent example yet of how our electoral system is struggling to cope with the new world of politics.

We go into these polls with four parties roughly tied across the country. Of course, these are not nationwide elections, and the turnout in locals is very different (about half) from that seen at general elections. But in many places, we will now see very narrow results, with three, four, or even five-way marginals (looking at you WECA mayoral), which will be won on narrow slivers of the vote share. It will push the first-past-the-post system to its highest levels of absurdity.

I've never been entirely in the camp of electoral reformers. I think there are pragmatic and philosophical arguments for giving full weight to decisive shifts in the electorate and allowing pluralities to become majorities. At a local level, however, these arguments feel weaker. Our current system is poorly equipped for the realities of regional politics. It weakens local governance, empowers vested interests and discourages engagement with local affairs for many.

Reforming this, perhaps as part of a bigger reorganisation of local government powers and responsibilities, could provide a real change. It could make politics more representative, but also likely better, with proper scrutiny, real competition, and more opportunities to get involved. With next week's locals likely to show a huge distortion between votes and seats, it might also provide the opportunity to build a consensus around changing electoral systems at this level.