| 6 mins read
Britain feels more fractured than ever after a summer of discontent. After fourteen years of Conservative rule followed by a Labour government that many see as even more recklessly led, of course, by a man who seems to think charisma is something you can download from a spreadsheet, the public mood is sour. Polling from July 2025 paints a stark picture: Reform UK leads with 30%, Labour trails at 20% and the Conservatives slump to 17%. The Liberal Democrats and Greens hover in the low teens, while new parties like the Corbyn-Sultana alliance and Rupert Lowe’s movement stir up fresh interest. Yet, despite this political diversity, our electoral system continues to funnel power into the hands of just two parties. It’s a system that rewards tactical voting and punishes genuine belief.
People are no longer voting for what they want—they’re voting against what they fear. That’s not democracy; it’s damage control. And it’s not sustainable. With so many parties now representing the full spectrum of British opinion, surely it’s time to ask whether our voting system is fit for purpose. Why should elections be dictated by the same old duopoly? Why should the centre ground be denied a fair chance to lead? The Liberal Democrats, the Greens and even Reform UK (love them or loathe them) deserve to be judged on their ideas, not sidelined by a system that favours the status quo.
Look at Switzerland. Their model of proportional representation forces parties to work together. Ministers from opposing factions share power and compromise isn’t a weakness —it’s the foundation of governance. The Swiss Federal Council (their executive branch) is made up of seven members and by design includes representation from both centre-right and centre-left parties regardless of which party wins the most votes. This 'magic formula' has remained remarkably stable since 1959, typically allocating two seats each to the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), Social Democrats (SP) and Liberals (FDP), with one seat for The Centre. Even when the SVP won 27.9% of the vote in the 2023 National Council elections, the highest of any party, they still only hold two seats in the executive. Power is shared, not seized.
Swiss citizens vote on average four times a year, not just for representatives, but on actual policy issues. Between 1995 and 2005, they voted 31 times on 103 federal questions, plus countless cantonal and municipal issues. In 2024 alone, voter turnout for national referendums ranged from 38% to 58%, with participation in parliamentary elections at 46.7%. And while that might seem low, 90% of Swiss citizens participated in at least one vote over a four-year period, showing selective but meaningful engagement.
The Swiss system also uses proportional representation for the National Council, meaning parties receive seats in proportion to their vote share. This gives smaller parties like the Greens (9.8% in 2023) real influence in Parliament. Meanwhile, the Council of States is elected by absolute majority, encouraging moderation and cross-party appeal. Perhaps most striking is that the government cannot dissolve Parliament and Parliament cannot dismiss the government. There are no snap elections. Stability is baked into the system. Ministers must govern together, speak with one voice and represent a broad spectrum of the electorate.
In short, Switzerland’s model ensures that, even if a party surges in popularity, it must still share power. It’s a system designed to reflect the country’s diversity, not suppress it. With a happier, more engaged population and one of the world’s most resilient economies, it’s hard not to wonder: what if Britain took a page from their book?
If the Conservatives want to reinvent themselves, and Labour hopes to avoid becoming the next casualty of public frustration, then embracing electoral reform may no longer be a luxury—it may be the only route left. This isn’t just about fairness or modernisation; it’s about political survival in a landscape that’s already shifting beneath their feet. Reform UK is on course for a clear win unless something fundamentally changes. The old parties can either cling to a system that’s visibly cracking, or they can help shape one that reflects the country as it is today: diverse, opinionated and no longer willing to settle for binary choices.
Because, ultimately, this is bigger than party politics. It’s about restoring trust in a system that too often feels rigged against the voter. We deserve a government that mirrors the complexity and character of the people it serves. Not one that forces us to choose between two brands of disappointment. With so many voices now in the political arena, surely it’s time we had a system that amplifies them, not silences them. If the parties won’t lead that change, then perhaps the public must. The future of British democracy depends on it.
