On December 15th 2020, the Cabinet Office took to Twitter to celebrate the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020, which had passed into law the previous day. This Act makes certain changes to how often constituency boundaries are reviewed, and the process involved in conducting these reviews.

In the Tweet in question, Chloe Smith MP is quoted as saying that it will deliver to every voter, “The confidence that their vote counts the same, no matter where it is cast.”

This statement is at best untrue. At worst it is willfully misleading.

Why? Because the principle that all votes count “the same” contradicts the logic of a First Past the Post voting system. No amount of tinkering with constituency boundaries will address that injustice.

Just take a look at the numbers. At the last election, it took only 38,264 votes to elect a single Conservative MP, but 50,837 for a Labour MP, 335,038, for a Lib Dem MP and 866,435 for a Green MP.

So to tell a Green voter that their vote will now count the same as their Tory voting neighbour is clearly absurd. To suggest that this will level the playing field for the 11.5% of the electorate who voted Lib Dem in 2019, in return for 1.7% of seats, is laughable. And for anyone who favoured a smaller party or independent candidate, only to find that their vote counted for nothing, Ms Smith’s words ring very hollow indeed.

This deep flaw in our voting system is warping our politics beyond recognition. When the system is so blatantly broken, is it really a surprise that so many consider voting to be a waste of their time, and doubt the legitimacy and motivations of elected politicians?

Ms Smith’s wilful ignorance of the facts is shocking, if not surprising. But the Tweet in question was part of an official government communication, not a party political campaign. For government sources to knowingly spread misinformation in this way sets a dangerous precedent, and must be challenged.

Having written to the Cabinet Office on 4th January, we waited over a month for a reply. When we finally got one, the government simply doubled down on their false assertion that the Act in question will 'deliver parity of representation across the United Kingdom's constituencies'. Their response went on to outline certain technical features of the Act at great length, and made no attempt to engage with the substance of the complaint.

When we referred this matter to the Advertising Standards Agency, the response was no better. According to the ASA, the Tweet in question does not fall under their remit, namely information related to the supply or transfer of goods, services, opportunities, and gifts.

Although we appealed this - arguing that the government is a provider of electoral services and is misrepresenting those services here - the ASA explained that this falls into the category of “editorial content” rather than “advertising”, as it is not a paid-for advertisement.

Whilst we respect the decision of the ASA, this does seem to set an alarming precedent for social media content. Chloe Smith’s tweet may fall within the letter of the law, but it’s hard to accept that such a dangerously misleading claim should be able to stand unchallenged. If even official government sources can dodge accountability for spreading this kind of misinformation, it’s clear that current regulations are not fit for purpose.

The way information is disseminated and consumed online is constantly evolving, throwing up new and complex questions around freedom of speech and editorial responsibility along the way. Getting the answers to these questions right is a huge challenge, but it is also one that goes to the heart of our democratic culture. Failure to rise to that challenge will fundamentally undermine the healthy functioning of democracy not just in the UK, but all over the world.

All votes are not created equal - and boundary reviews won't change that