Andy Burnham has made a bold decision.

His announcement of a National Commission on Electoral Reform puts an issue that governments have traditionally found easier to avoid firmly onto the political agenda. Labour will go into the next general election committed to changing the electoral system, while a National Commission will consider what should replace First Past the Post.

There is political risk in spending capital on constitutional reform when governments face so many immediate pressures. But Burnham is also in a position to achieve something that has eluded reformers for generations.

The starting principle should be simple: votes should be meaningful.

Under First Past the Post, they are not equally so. A voter living in a highly marginal constituency can potentially help determine who represents them, while someone supporting a minority party in a safe seat may go through election after election without their vote contributing towards representation in Parliament.

The system also encourages tactical voting. Millions of people face the question not of which candidate or party they most support, but which available option has the best chance of stopping somebody else.

That might be electoral strategy, but it is a poor foundation for representative democracy.

Proportional representation offers an opportunity to change that. The objective should be a Parliament whose composition much more closely reflects how people actually voted. It would allow people to vote positively for the political party or candidate they support, knowing their vote will contribute towards representation.

There will inevitably be arguments that PR would give greater representation to parties on the political fringes. But recent British political developments have severely weakened the argument that First Past the Post somehow protects the country from political fragmentation. Reform UK has already demonstrated that significant political movements can emerge under the existing system, although this is rare. The democratic response should not be to design an electoral system around keeping particular parties out. It should be to allow voters to determine their representation, and, heavens forbid, try and win the argument.

However, not every form of proportional representation is equally desirable.

Scotland's Additional Member System combines constituency representatives with regional members elected from party lists. Voters choose a party on the regional ballot, while parties determine the order of their candidates.

Westminster should be wary of replicating that model.

The controversies surrounding Labour's candidate selections before the 2024 general election demonstrated the dangers of excessive power being concentrated within political party machinery. Candidates were installed in seats through accelerated central processes, including senior party figures and NEC members, while several local selection controversies attracted national criticism.

Electoral reform should transfer power from political parties to voters, not create another route through which parties can determine who enters Parliament.

The Commission should therefore seriously examine proportional systems that preserve voter choice over individual candidates, rather than relying on closed party lists. That means considering mechanisms such as the Single Transferable Vote, where voters rank individual candidates and representation is determined proportionally across larger constituencies.

No electoral system is perfect. Reform, not the party, will involve difficult questions about constituency representation, proportionality, accountability and the relationship between MPs and voters.

But the principle should not be difficult.

Someone voting Labour in a Conservative stronghold, Conservative in a Labour stronghold, Green in County Durham, Liberal Democrat in Essex or Reform in inner London should be entitled to believe their vote has equal democratic value.

For too long, where somebody lives has helped determine how much electoral influence their vote carries.

Andy Burnham has opened the door to changing that. The National Commission should now be ambitious enough to walk through it.