Some of us recall Labour’s promise of electoral reform when they came to power back in 1997. A promise so far unfulfilled. I have long been frustrated by our first past the post system. On the one hand it delivers a strong parliament (most of the time), yet on the other, it disenfranchises a significant proportion of the electorate. This is perfectly illustrated by a strong Labour majority in the commons supported by a popular vote of around 22%. Worse, is the blatant wooing of those voters in marginal seats while those of us in safe seats are ignored. Our votes don’t count – we may as well not bother. Which, I suppose, is one reason why many do just that – along with the rampant betrayal of principles by our elected representatives, that is…
Anyway, the whole thing has surfaced again on the BBC:
It is hard to imagine that people will ever riot in the streets demanding proportional representation.
A few have consistently demanded reform and I recall early on in this government’s tenure there was a Labour group campaigning for reform. I haven’t heard much of them for some years, though.
“What do we want? STV!!.. no, AMS!.. oh hang on, AV with a top-up from a regional list would be fine too…”
To many, it’s simply Westminster wonkery of the highest order.
But its acronyms might be about to matter much more and Thursday’s report by the Ministry of Justice is the government’s most significant contribution to the debate for years.
I’ll be interested in the outcome of that report. Of course, the type of system is what makes all the difference.
However, those of you who want PR as a solution to the flawed system we have; be aware of the unintended consequences. A classic example of unreasonable power vested in minority parties is happening in Italy at the moment.
Premier Romano Prodi’s slim chance of winning a make-or-break Senate vote appeared to worsen Wednesday after more allies announced their defection amid growing pressure on the center-left leader to resign.
Thursday’s confidence vote in the upper chamber, which would determine if Prodi’s 20-month-old government could still survive, appeared increasingly to be a doomed gamble for the premier after at least three senators from his coalition’s parties said they wouldn’t back him.
Prodi cannot govern with this system. Um… Now… There’s a thought…
Facetiousness aside, the idea that a small party may wield unreasonable power is not an outcome we should be seeking. Although, arguably that is what we have at the moment.
So, dissatisfied with FPTP and wary of PR, I’m not really sure what I want – apart, that is, from an elected chamber that represents the electorate and is genuinely accountable to them.
It’s a difficult topic.
I favour sticking with FPTP, but with top ups to ameliorate the worst aspects, so let’s assume the LibDems (as much as I hate them) get 20% of popular vote but only 60 MPs out of 600, they get a bonus 75 MPs (the PPCs who got the most votes in other constituences), so they end up with 135 MPs out of 675 = 20%. But no regional lists! That way lies disaster! (Some constituencies would end up with two MPs, but so what?)
The maths gets a bit tricky when there are several parties, so we’d have a hurdle of say 5% or 10% of popular vote to keep it from getting too complicated. Also, to avoid ending up with a thousand MPs, we could cut the number of constituences down to 300 or 400.
PR may not be perfect but it’s not right that a minority in Scotland get to rule over the rest of us. Also I’d vote under PR because I’d know my vote counted.
Expecting PR under Labour is a pipe dream however, as they would be throwing away power. Something those little B–tard would never ever do.
I prefer FPTP, despite its flaws, because of the issues with minority parties (imagine the BNP being in a position to hold sway!) and also the way governments are (or aren’t as the case may be) cobbled together in places like Belgium.
However I would like to see some changes, but not along the lines Mark says which is too complicated. I would like to see MP’s given more freedoms and those who “rebel” not held up as some sort of traitor. I am not sure how this could work but here are a few thoughts:
That should do to get the debate going
Now that could be interesting – it already happens with councils and does mean that they can get held to account mid term effectively.
I also like the idea mooted over at DKs about more independents – there would have to be changes in the system to make it more viable for independent candidates.
SF, it is not complicated, they have it in other countries. As much as I despise the BNP (in fact all of them except UKIP) why shouldn’t they hold sway if that’s what people vote for? Are we a democracy or not?
Mark Wadsworth’s last blog post..Rising star? Rising star?
Mark,
The comment about the BNP was aimed at the left who seem to think that democracy is OK as long as the legal parties of the far right don’t get to play.
Whilst the BNP are an odious bunch as long as they are legal I’m with Voltaire.
The Great Simpleton’s last blog post..Home Secretary mauled on Today, again
FPTP is a least worst option considering the others AFAICT, ghastly as it is.
New Labour have performed electoral reform.
In the Lords, it is done on merit – i.e. who has been a good boy and paid wads of cash.
In the Commons, the EU reforming treaty means we have a dead legislature.
In local elections, postal votes have reformed the voting into an utter scam.
There.
New Labour talks of ‘change’ and ‘reform’. I want IMPROVEMENT!
Roger Thornhill’s last blog post..Improvements in lead-acid batteries.