It’s a change that happened largely under the radar. But a subtle shift to the voting system for mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) elections in England and Wales has drawn widespread criticism from voters across the country – many of whom were affected for the first time this Thursday.

The move has effectively abolished voters’ ability to cast a second preference for mayor or PCC – which was previously used as a ‘back up’ or insurance vote if people’s first choice lacked majority support. 

The Government’s change from the so-called Supplementary Vote system to Westminster-style First Past the Post (FPTP) came as part of the controversial Elections Act 2022, which contained the provisions enforcing mandatory photo ID for voters. It was also accused of being a “power grab” bill, curtailing the independence of the Electoral Commission. 

In practice, the voting system change means that a lot of voters felt they couldn’t opt for their preferred choice on Thursday, instead voting 'tactically’, perhaps for what they deemed a lesser evil. 

Speaking to Byline Times’ VoteWatch survey, many voters expressed frustration and dissatisfaction, emphasising that the new system limited their ability to vote for their preferred candidate without wasting their vote.

Here are voices from across England who have voiced their concerns.

Trevor Hyett, 80, from Wandsworth in south-west London, said the shift was “shameful”: "My first choice remained [the same], but I would have used the second option sadly not available to me."

Trevor Hyett feels he is now denied a real choice under First Past the Post

In Worthing, Susan Zasikowski, 72, said she was advised to vote tactically for Labour, which she then did – emphasising the strategic considerations now necessary for many voters.

In Worcestershire, Mary Emery expressed her tactical approach in the PCC election, saying that she felt she couldn’t “vote for my favoured candidate”.

David Glyn Jones in Newark shared a similar sentiment: "I changed my vote to vote tactically rather than my first choice party."

And Steven Pruner in Islington shifted to tactical voting under the new system: “I had to vote strategically to ensure we did not get any Tories in office."

Chris Bell from Kingston put it simply: "I was forced to vote Labour."

In Basingstoke and Deane, Audrey Boucher said her plan now was to do “anything to get Tory out – [the] local independent candidate was only 67 votes behind last time".

And Vicki Evans, 55, from Kidderminster, expressed frustration over the imposition of FPTP, stating that she could "only vote tactically" due to the change. 

Vicki Evans is one of hundreds of voters to tell Byline Times that they felt cheated by the change

Simon Morrison-Peacock, from Stockton, who voted in the Tees Valley mayoral election, was disheartened, saying: "I would have voted for another candidate but [it would have been] a wasted vote because realistically only two candidates can win."

Simon Higginson, from London, highlighted the missed opportunity to show support for smaller parties, stating: "I would have liked to have voted for a party unlikely to win but to show there was a groundswell of support for it, knowing that my vote would then be transferred to a candidate more likely to win."

Peter Haydon, 59, from Southwark, voiced disappointment over not being able to enter a second preference – a sentiment echoed by Patrick Hall, 59, from Powys in Wales, who mentioned that he also voted tactically whereas previously he would have given a different candidate his first preference.

From Islington, Keith Grey condemned the shift as "further skulduggery from an increasingly undemocratic Government". He chose "the best option to keep the candidate I do not want out".

Similarly, Mark Smithies from Westminster, was also compelled to vote tactically, stating: "Yes, had to vote Labour, would have had Green as first preference given the choice."

Gabriel Schucan, from Hackney South, criticised the change for not getting enough attention, saying: "I was denied my 'vote for the heart' and had to go straight to the 'vote for the brain'." He found it "quite shocking" that Westminster "interferes in local issues like that just to give themselves a better chance".

Fran in Bromley pointed out that the shift meant that she “didn’t have the opportunity to add second or third preferences, for the Greens and Count Binface… [I] can’t risk [Conservative] Susan Hill being elected [as Mayor of London]”.

In Croydon, John Edwards also felt he was denied a vote for Count Binface or a small party. 

And Eric Worrall from Cheltenham said he would have preferred to vote for his party’s candidate and not tactically.

David Jones from Bedford relied on a website, Stop the Tories, to determine his tactical vote: "I’m totally opposed to the change. First Past the Post needs urgent reform."

David Brown, a Make Votes Matter activist from Haringey in London, voted tactically for Labour's incumbent London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who would have been his second preference under the previous system.

In Surrey, Dave Beynon also noted tactical voting was now more of a consideration for him: "I researched who is most likely to beat the incumbent and voted for them instead of voting for the preferred candidate."

Charlotte Eleanor Earney from Waltham Forest likewise felt compelled to vote for a party she no longer supported, to prevent another party she liked even less from winning.

Andrew Hayes from Oldham expressed nostalgia for the previous system: "I do remember voting a second preference last time and would have liked to be able to again."

Allan Williams from Hackney criticised the change as "very undemocratic” and possibly “gerrymandering” by the Government.

Read More VoteWatch Coverage

Spotted something strange or face issues voting in the local elections? Fill in our VoteWatch survey. If you have a political story or tip-off, email josiah@bylinetimes.com.