Peter Facey (London, Unlock Democracy): The government's review of electoral systems was published yesterday, finally fulfilling a manifesto commitment dating back to 2001. Will it move us significantly forward, possibly even fulfilling Labour's 1997 promise to let voters decide which system best suits their interests? Sadly, the answer is "no," suggesting that Gordon Brown's "new politics" agenda amounts to little more than cherry picking the reforms which he feels best suit him.
At the same time, the review has not gone in the other direction, proposing to tear up the existing proportional voting systems in the UK (which are now used for all elections other than the ones for the House of Commons and local government in England and Wales). The reason for that is that they have worked well, delivering balanced representative bodies in which pluralistic cross-party negotiation and scrutiny is the order of the day. For many, who prefer the comfort of the darkened, smoke-filled room where political deals were made in the past, such open and often messy politics is distasteful. But the vast majority of voters have gained immeasurably more influence and seem in no hurry to go back to the old systems.
The broken first past the post (FPTP) system is running out of allies. Last month, the Department of Communities and Local Government published the findings of its Councillors' Commission. The report calls for local authorities to be allowed to experiment with the single transferable voting system (STV), the system now used in Scottish local elections, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. In and of itself that is a fairly modest proposal, but the Commission made a series of other proposals on electoral reform which complement the STV proposal in other ways. Meanwhile, in Wales, the prospects of electoral reform in local government have improved following the 2007 Assembly elections. A recommendation by the Welsh Executive-appointed Sunderland Commission in 2002, the proposal has languished while Labour held a majority. Yet even the Welsh Conservatives are relatively in favour of reform, and Labour are now in coalition with Plaid.
The hegemonic powers most threatened by electoral reform - Labour and the Conservatives - are at various stages on the road to acceptance. Denial remains dominant: many Conservatives simply don't recognise that the present electoral system wouldn't give them a majority even if they were up to 10 points ahead of Labour in the polls; many Labour politicians simply don't accept that a political party with just 36% of the vote lacks the moral authority to govern on its own. There are however a growing number on both sides who are starting to contemplate alternatives.
Inside Labour, the talk is all about the Alternative Vote (AV) - the system currently used for the Australian House of Representatives. A preferential voting system, this would use the same single member constituencies as FPTP. Many Labour politicians present this as a "more proportional" system, yet the truth of the matter is that while AV is not completely without its merits (it would certainly end tactical voting and extend voter choice) it is no more proportional, and potentially less so, than FPTP. It will also be vigourously opposed by the Conservatives for many of the same reasons that many Labour MPs support it; both see it as a way of shutting out the Conservatives by shoring up Labour majorities with Lib Dem transfers. Both may be wrong (the tactical unwind phenomenon witnessed in 2005 can only continue), but it will hinder any attempt to get popular support.
Meanwhile, and quite bafflingly, Conservatives cling to the idea that the inherent biases against them within the system can be perfected by fiddling with constituency boundaries. ConservativeHome have just launched a campaign on this. Yet while more frequent boundary reviews and more equal-sized constituencies may be a good thing in themselves, it is fanciful to suggest it will have a dramatic impact on removing the inherent randomness of the FPTP system, as the Electoral Reform Society has demonstrated (opens pdf). It would throw up other problems, such as the need to establish artificial boundaries which the public will object to, and the danger of politicising the system to the extent that you end up with the sort of gerrymandering for which US politics is notorious. The biggest single flaw of single-member constituencies is that the victor can depend entirely on where the lines on the map have been drawn.
But while most Conservatives will continue to have an allergic reaction to the term "proportional representation", a growing number recognise that for the party to continue to present itself as a champion of choice and competition, its rhetoric must be matched by policy when it comes to elections. Jonathan Bryant from Direct Democracy has spelt out their position on Our Kingdom, calling for primaries to fight the incumbency factor and "multi-member constituencies." Most electoral reformers in the UK have similar concerns, which is why STV - a system originally developed by Conservative MP Thomas Hare which uses multi-member constituencies rather than party lists - is the one supported by most reformers. How long before they realise we have common cause?
Ultimately though, any change to the electoral system is a political act that can't be left to desk studies performed "objectively" by civil servants, as the Review itself admits. Self-interest always drives the demand for change, and self-interest will always resist it. That is why MPs are ultimately the worst people to decide on an electoral system that affects them directly. The final judges in such a decision should be the voters themselves, which is why Labour's 1997 manifesto commitment for a referendum remains crucial. An enlightened government would take the matter out of their hands entirely and introduce something like the Citizens Assembly and referendum system used in British Columbia and Ontario. This doesn't guarantee electoral reform - the Ontarians recently voted against adopting a proportional voting system - but it is the best system for ensuring the decision is made in an open and transparent manner. After 11 years of constitutional change, the public is in an excellent position to come to an informed view about which electoral system best suits its interests. With Gordon Brown's talk of "new politics" starting to sound a little hollow, this is precisely the sort of bold move he ought to consider.
Moderator: There is also a discussion of this by Paul Linford in Behind the Lines.
