Peter Facey (London, Unlock Democracy): As someone who watches the debate about our electoral system with a keen (if not nerdish) interest and tries to read the tea leaves of what it means for our future, two things are becoming clear. Firstly support for reform of our political institutions and our electoral system is growing among Labour thinkers and leaders. And secondly it’s not a proportional reform but a majoritarian one that is gathering momentum.
Both John Denham and Sunder Katwala have published articles this week calling for electoral reform. Interestingly they are both advocating a complete package with a proportional upper house and a majoritarian house of commons elected by the alternative vote. This is what I have called the Australian settlement as it is basically the system that has operated in the Commonwealth of Australia since 1949. Now it does have the benefit of thinking about parliament as a whole and offering a comprehensive package, and it needs serious consideration. But there is a danger that some advocates of AV are selling it as sort of cheap and easy PR that would allow MP's to retain their single seats whilst giving most of the benefits of PR.
This is not the case. AV would do two important things: ensure that every MP has a majority and ensure that the curse of people being forced to vote tactically will be removed from our political system. It might also reduce the number of safe seats (but probably not by as much as its advocates believe). It will not produce more proportional results (it could even produce less proportional results), it does nothing about parties having a monopoly of power, and certainly does not tackle the adversarial nature of our political system that leaves many of our citizens cold.
The interesting thing is that both John and Sunder have recognised some of this and therefore argue that we need to reform parliament as a whole, with the Lords being elected on a proportional basis to balance the majoritarian lower house. The problem for me is that though this reform package would improve what we have, it will not fundamentally ensure that votes have equal value or break up the existing local monopolies to ensure that representative democracy in the UK has a fresh start. It would be like giving a patient a drug to deal with the pain of a worn hip rather than surgery to replace the whole hip and give the patient a drug free life. But it may be cheapest way of dealing with the problem, and this may be why many in Labour are starting to support it.
For this reform to fly one thing will have to change: the Tories will have to stop seeing this as an anti-conservative reform. Its advocates need to prove that their proposed electoral system is neutral and not loaded in Labour's favour. If they can do that I may welcome such a reform, but I see no reason to campaign for it.
Comments
Peter,
A fair response. For supporters of PR, it is certainly an imperfect solution but, as you say, it has some clear benefits on where we are now. The political choice is to whether or not this would be something to support, as a compromise. Personally, I would back a form of PR which had enough support to be implemented, but think this compromise offers significant advantages, not least given the erratic and unpredictable nature of FPTP if there are close elections. There are some (eg Jack Straw) who will back AV or FPTP but not PR. So this is achievable by 2011, while I can't see how full PR is achievable in the next five to ten years at present.
The formula 'It will not produce more proportional results (it could even produce less proportional results)' overstates it. There is no guarantee of more proportional results, and less proportional results are possible, but so are more proportional results. While this depends on many factors in terms of voter preferences and their distribution, in most cases, this is the more likely outcome, given that AV is likely to see the third party much less badly treated than under FPTP. However, a strong 'pariah' effect as the Tories had in 1997 would see AV exaggerate decisive victories.
Peter Kellner offered a good analysis of this in his submission to Jenkins
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/volume-2/cmmnt01.PDF
To carry a referendum, it needs to not be a partisan reform. The broader package with Lords reform is part of that. Under AV, the Tories would undergo a much deeper modernisation and there can be no guarantee that Labour would win most LibDem/other second preferences in future elections.
[...] Click here to read the full article. [...]
Not “AV or STV” - but “Preferential voting for all”
Peter and Sunder seem to be locked in the same dilemma that lost the opportunity for electoral reform the last time there was a serious national debate – AV or STV. It seems to me that is because they are both considering, rightly, the highest aim of reform as being the achievement of PR. Sunder says “For supporters of PR, it (AV) is certainly an imperfect solution but, as you say, it has some clear benefits on where we are now. The political choice is to whether or not this would be something to support, as a compromise”.
A number of leading campaigners are now suggesting a change in focus at this stage – not for PR itself, but for replacing X-voting by preferential voting, 1,2,3 (strictly speaking STV no matter whether electing one or many). If that is the touchstone of the campaign, then there is no need to view AV as a compromise but as a positive step, and the rationale for it and its benefits can be seen to be consistent with the aim of the whole campaign. A major benefit immediately would be that the public would no longer be faced with, and confused by, a wide variety of different style ballot papers and would quickly be encouraged to vote positively rather than tactically. Furthermore, in local elections, where there are often multi-member wards already, the benefits of STV in Scotland would be felt across the whole of the UK.
I entirely accept that retaining single-member constituencies for Westminster will not gain the real prize – a much more representative set of MPs – but surely, if we now have the opportunity again for electoral reform, it is better to embrace the political current and the most sensible way of voting, rather than to lose that opportunity for another century while we continue to argue about AV or STV! Of course, it would be far better if it were possible to gain multi-member constituencies for Westminster now, and that should still be the ultimate aim. But if that is not possible, let us learn from the past and make sure preferential voting does not lose out to the much worse hybrid solutions being promoted to give PR. Let us take a sensible and principled step in the right direction.
Post new comment