It’s a big year for elections – possibly the biggest in history. Half the world is due to vote in 2024, including major elections in India, the US, and Brazil. Putin was also “re-elected” recently. Here in the UK, we’ll be going to the polls when the Conservatives realise they can’t possibly leave it any longer, and not a moment sooner.
When that election comes, it will be under the First Past the Post (FPTP) system as usual. A simple majority will elect members of parliament, with the leader of the biggest parliamentary party becoming Prime Minister. I’ve written before about the shortcomings of this system, and what some alternatives might be. Today I wanted to mention a report into the connection between electoral reform and climate change.
Bad election processes may be holding back climate action as well as democracy. That’s according to a recent report from Compass. They argue that FPTP leads to a narrow focus on swing seats. Across the country there are safe seats for either of the two big political parties. With those seats ‘in the bag’, manifesto writers tend to focus on swaying those who are undecided. That leads to a watering down of climate ambition in order to keep people on side. Polling suggests 76% of people support net zero climate targets and a majority want to see the government doing more. Party policies don’t reflect that, in part because policy is being written for specific voter profiles in ‘winnable’ seats.
A second problem is that FTPT narrows power to two political parties, who essentially take turns to run the country. Parties with more radical climate policies don’t get a look in, and so ambitious climate action remains at the margins. This narrowing of power becomes a political elite, easily influenced by media and corporate interests, which are often working to delay and restrict climate policy.
Thirdly, climate action needs cooperation and partnership. FPTP fosters oppositional politics and undermines the kind of collaboration that could bring in real change. The Climate Act in 2008 was a high point of cross-party agreement in the UK, and it was all too brief. Electoral reform would create a more diverse government where people would have to work together. Research suggests that countries with fairer electoral systems are further ahead on climate change, setting more ambitious targets and making faster progress towards them.
“The point is that the powerful new demand for climate justice can’t break through because the system blocks it” says Compass. Electoral reform won’t magically fix the climate, but “by opening the system up, by making the entry barriers fair, proportional representation allows new ideas, new people and new parties into the system. As ever, there is no guarantee that all of these will want climate justice. But that becomes the fight to be had – on a level playing field, rather than an impossibly entrenched status quo.”
The Earthbound Report 
It is very simple, we all need to vote for the candidate that is most competent to deal with the climate and environment emergency, completely irrespective of the party they represent. We would likely end up with a coalition with excellent climate credentials and a change in the voting system for future elections.
I’ve posted many times on social media that unless the US reforms its corrupt electoral system there will be no progress on climate change or many other related issues. Asking foxes that run the chicken coop to be mindful of the chickens welfare is lunacy.
Secondly even if you have proportional representative voting you can end up with corrupt 2 party systems as we do in Australia.