British general elections are contested under “first past the post”. You pick one person from a list of names, and vote for them.
Many voters don’t want to vote for someone, they want to vote against someone: to kick them out, or prevent them from getting in. That is a legitimate opinion and the voting system should allow it.
This post is not making the case for or against first past the post, versus a proportional system. Rather it sets out a way to improve first past the post.
I propose…
…a two-part ballot. The first part would be the same as now: pick one from a list of candidates. These would be counted as now.
The second part would have the same list of candidates, with their party affiliations. This time, however, you can tick which candidates you do not want to win. You could vote for as many or as few as you like.
If your preferred candidate cannot win, your vote will be reallocated to someone capable of beating the ones you don’t want to win.
You would not be obliged to vote positively for any candidate. You could simply dislike one or more candidates, and your vote will be allocated to the person best-placed to beat the ones you dislike.
As an example, a Green voter wanting to defeat the Tories would vote Green, and express their dislike of the Tories (and perhaps Reform as well). Unless they live somewhere where the Greens are in contention, their vote would be allocated to the Labour or Liberal Democrat candidate. Similarly, a Reform voter who really dislikes the LibDems might have their vote reallocated to the Conservatives or Labour.
This approach has five advantages.
First, allowing people to express dislike is fundamentally democratic. That is their view, and the voting system should allow them to express it.
Second, parties will want not only to win votes, but to lose dislikes. This gives all politicians an incentive not to write off any group of voters, and to govern for the country as a whole. I think that my proposal would have harmed Labour last time, and would harm the Conservatives this time. Moving away from the bulk of the British people and pandering to your base would be a bad approach, electorally. That seems like a useful attribute in a voting system.
Third, it makes it harder for extremists to win seats. With voters moving away from the two party system, the share of the vote needed to win is going down. I can imagine a populist party, if not in this election then in future, winning seats on a third of the vote or less, even though the clear majority of people in their constituency strongly oppose them.
Fourth, it will support the Union. The nationalist vote in Scotland goes overwhelmingly to the SNP, but the unionist vote is split. Voters for whom the union is the most important issue will be able to express that by disliking the SNP on the relevant part of the ballot.
Finally, it would give a more honest sense of the strength of the parties. We have no idea how many people support the Green Party, because many such people will vote tactically. Tactical voting is a necessity with first past the post, but it is a regrettable necessity. Under this proposal everyone who wants to vote Green can do so, while not preventing the realistic outcome they would like.
My proposal is not a form of proportional representation. It would still be possible for better and for worse to win 20% of the vote across the country and get no, or next to no seats. It has some similarities to the supplementary vote system: unlike supplementary vote, it delivers all five advantages listed above.