I am giving Janice Small a guest spot on my blog to highlight the question of electoral reform, is it really an impossibility? Would it help 
Conservatives sweep to power? Would it encourage more people to vote?
Janice was motivated to write about it after meeting Keith Best, who is championing the cause as Chairman of Conservative Action for Electoral Reform and Director of Electoral Reform International Services. He is also ranked as one of the 100 most influential people in public services in the UK.
Other supporters have included Chris Patten, Michael Ancram and Douglas Hurd. They cite the February 1974 election when Conservatives won more votes than Labour – yet fewer seats, and Harold Wilson became prime minister.
Is proportional representation becoming increasingly desirable as we are faced with the possibility of a hung parliament? This would have been an interesting topic to debate at the Party conference. Here is what Janice says:
“Last week I met Keith Best, former Conservative MP for Anglesey, charity worker and lone campaigner for the Conservative Action for Electoral Reform.
“Keith’s campaign for electoral reform – to promote the single transferable vote (SVT) also known as proportional representation – will have to be examined by the main political parties as there is a possibility that there will be a hung parliament at the next election.
“With lower voter turn out and people feeling that their vote doesn’t count in a large Party majority area he thinks that STV will turn the tide against voter apathy.
“In the 2005 election in England we polled 35.7% of the vote gaining 194 seats and Labour gained 35.5% of the vote but gained 286 seats. Stark reading. However, Keith argues that when Conservatives claim to ‘Speak for England’ having narrowly “wonâ€? the election here, is only a debating point unless we concede the case for electoral reform.
“He explained that the Conservative Party has to re-examine the pro-Labour First-Past-the Post (FPTP) electoral system currently in use and that the Conservatives hoped that the new boundary changes would help them; it did in part but not enough to win an outright election. FPTP has weakened the Conservatives in the big cities – where we need to win seats. He cites the counties and cities where STV would gain us many seats. He looks at areas where we are under-represented in 16 areas from Avon to Merseyside to West Yorkshire where we currently have 38 seats. In the 2005 election under STV we would have gained 78-80 seats.
“Current thinking is – and Francis Maude is saying this – that at the next election if we gained an 11% majority and Labour and the Lib Dems gained a similar percentage of the vote, that there would be a hung parliament.
“We suffered even worse treatment in Scotland under FPTP where we polled nearly a sixth of the vote but had only one MP out of 59 to show for our pain. Interestingly, in the 2007 local elections Scotland will be using the SVT system. We should watch and analyse the outcome.
“There are many arguments against SVT but electoral reform would ameliorate some of the problems caused by differential turnout. Votes would count everywhere, the incentive to focus solely on the marginal seats would lessen and ‘safe’ areas would become competitive. Under both systems we would still need to propel ourselves into the 40%+ range of support but under STV Labour would also require this level of support in a reformed system. This is food for thought and not a policy suggestion.”
Is there any reason why the question of electoral reform can’t be thrown into the melting pot, even Jack Straw believes our voting system is antiquated and says any changes would be decided on a referendum, despite Lord Falconer’s dismissive comments. Or is the reality that it might benefit Lib Dems, or even UKIP, more than us?
At the risk of raking over old coals, is this not the Keith Best who was MP for the noted English constituency of Anglesey, who engaged in some odd BT share buying and appears to have spent time in prison for the same?
More here.
I am willing to engage in debate about STV. What I would not be happy with is party list PR systems such as used in France with the impact that politicians are incentivised to serve their party more than the electorate. A whole political class of Sion Simons would emerge.
Ellee, we had a good debate on this at Oncemore last year!
Sadly, the site has ground to a halt now!
Is proportional representation becoming increasingly desirable as we are faced with the possibility of a hung parliament? This would have been an interesting topic to debate at the Party conference. No – bad idea – one small little clutch of ideologues hold the major parties to ransom.
Janice makes some good points. The fact that the Conservatives ‘won’ in England is worth remembering. Scotland will always be this way. Perhaps they need to be ‘truly independant, so the the rest of the country can be governed properly?
Politicians only talk about electoral reform when not in power. Once in power any notions soon disappear. I was once strongly in favour of PR but after I discovered what happens in Israel with a minority power effectively calling the shots I’m not so sure.
How about disbanding the party system altogether so that groups are only formed on specific issues?
Croydonian, you are quite right, he served 5 days in prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Best
He has certainly led an interesting life.
Geoff, I can’t see your your system working, it seems too disjointed.
Can’t see proportional representation happening now, not for a while. It doesn’t benefit Labour and it doesn’t benefit the Tories.
I’m always irritated by the LD argument of ‘principle’ that PR is all about making votes count. This is all so much hooey – it is really about a minority party being able to hold the Foreign Office, like the German FDP (until recently) did, as some kind of fiefdom. I also think it is recipe for lowest common denominator consensus politics. Thus the Labour party in ’45, or the Tories from ’79 onwards would never have been able to bring in legislation that radically changed the nation.
There are some interesting points here and I am delighted that we are debating the issue – thanks to Janice and Ellee for that. I do not like list systems (even open ones where the voter can give preferences to those on the list) but the Party list system (such as we have for the European elections) gives no voter choice at all – it gives all the power to the Party. The public will not have confidence in a system that just gives proportionality (such as the Israeli national list) without voter choice. We prefer the Single Transferable Vote (STV) because it keeps the link between elected representatives and geographical constituencies as well as giving voter choice and enabling political parties to put forward several candidates so that different strains of policy as well as women and ethnic minorities can be put before the people. From next May Scottish local government will be elected by STV – so we all shall be able to see the system in operation with its advantages and disadvantages. Keep the debate going! Thanks to Croydonian for mentioning what happened to me 19 years ago – a salutary lesson for me at the time which I have never sought to hide and which gave me greater insight.
Keith, thank you for responding to the points raised. It will be interesting to see how STVs work out in Scotland.
Good debate, enjoyed reading it, and a fine and noble intevention at the end from Mr Best for whom, I think, we should let bygones be bygones.
First past the post has many faults and does throw up anomolies, such as the Tories gaining a greater number of votes in England last year, but it also tends to elect serious players from parties which can actually have a stab at forming either governments or oppositions. Lists elections have already created two classes of MSP in the hopeless Holyrood talking shop and PR would, I fear, open the door for undesirables from the far Right. UKIP might stand a chance that way or, worse for all of us, the BNP.
The second point is that changing the rules to change the outcome just doesn’t feel right. The Tories will get back in next time or maybe the time after that and will have their chance. The wheel always turns and history teaches us that governments elected with no overall majority usually go to the country again in a year or so and either do the job properly or get chucked out: given a second chance, the electorate opts for a clear-cut answer.
I have been waiting for some serious debate on this subject since I first joined the Campaign for Electoral Reform thirty years ago.All three parties have declined to consider PR/STV in the 20th Century, when they were ahead. The whole system is creaked, people are not voting anymore because everything is so centralised, that ‘the link’ between geographically area is largely non existant. We have not had a Great Reform Bill since the 1830’s. It is about time the ‘rotten boroughs’ created by ‘safe’ seats were swept away.
Slightly connected to party support, Ed Vaizey makes a good point here about the rise of campaign groups.
I always thought it was pathetic that Keith Best was sent to prison for such a trivial offence – and thereby ruined his parliamentary career to boot. When you consider the real crimes which are committed and the individuals barely receive a slap on the wrist!
I must add though that this will not be considered by the Tories.
Take my example I live in Kent and my MP holds a slim majority over the Lib Dems. Therefore I vote Tory, even as they slip to the left. With a change to the system I may well vote UKIP as it would not directly damage the Tories in a marginal.
The Tories can lose votes to the LD’s and UKIP. Lab to the LD’s. All lose votes to the Greens.
Overall who benefits most? LD’s, then Lab, UKIP, Others, Tories.
It is a calculated logic for Tories to want to keep the current system, even with its flaws
The Liberal Democrats would surely losr votes as well, cityunslicker – their vote share slips where UKIP stand, so disaffected Tories could scatter, as could left-wing voters who tactically support the Lib Dems.
PR could be a good electoral method for a democratic upper house, ensuring that no party would have a majority (especially if somehow a cross-bencher-style independent bloc were included), balancing the flaws of FPTP and PR across the two chambers.
Both The Tories and Labour benefited from FPTP in England.
The Tories got 35.7% of the vote and 36.7% of the seats. So the Tories are actually OVERREPRESENTED in England by this system. How is this unfair to the Tories?
The truth is List PR in the long term delivers higher economic growth, lower inequality, better funded public services, tougher environmental standards and higher political engagement.
Now after 9 years of opposition you guys have finally joined Labour in publicly backing these objectives, shouldn’t this be the reasons we go for PR and ignore which tribal party allegiance it benefits?
STV is not fully proportional, and a party gaining 45%+ can get a small majority- Fianna Fail have done this in Eire.
It empowers the voters- they can choose between candidates from the same party- something Tories might like (libertarian or authoritarian Tory for example). It would also give tha party a toe-hold in areas they are currently weak in eg. South Yorkshire, Glasgow etc.
Party List systems are anti-democratic
Amdrew, Can you please clarify and explain what exactly is the difference between STV and PR?