There is no perfect electoral system, but we have particular difficulties that need to be addressed. That doesn't mean that we should necessarily abandon the, 'first past the post' system (SPTPS), but we must recognise the problems.
Presumsably, we all agree that our electoral system consists of three elements. (1) Constituents. (2) Representation and (3) Geographical area. As far as possible, these three elements are kept in balance, although compromises on occasions are necessary.
Geographically large constituencies, for example, have smaller electorates. Not necessarity ideal, but pragmatic.
The strength of our system, historically, lay in the Two Party system which dominated British politics for a couple of centuries or more. The other good point was the peaceful transformation of the dominant parties themselves: Whigs and Tories, to Liberal and Conservative. The system was also dynamic and avoided both Reactionary and Revolutionary politics, while at the same time not becoming fossilized political movements. This allowed distinct choices; the electorate could give a party, a parliamentary majority, but could take it away at the next election. This ensured the necessity, by party managers, to be mindful of the electorates concerns.
A further factor was the political allegiance of the electorate: broadly split 50/50. That was to further reinforce the overall strength of the system. But an important change was to occur over a couple of generations. At the GE of 1935, Stanley Baldwin was to be the last PM elected, having received with more than 50% of the popular vote. Labour nearly did it in 1945, and Harold MacMillan did even better in the 1959 GE. He didn't reach 50%, but was very close. To some extent, these subsequent changes limited the electorates chances of having governments, which represented any broad shift in political public opinion. This fragmentation in political allegiance, will be further institutionalised by PR in all its forms and manifestations. The (FPTPS) is underwritten by single member constituencis. You may have to vist MPs' those political allegiance you do not share, but it also an educative process for the MP himself. They become aware that not all the world thinks as they do. Again, another valuable unifying process.
PR increases the power of the party machine: the list system, possibly the more preferable, in my opinion, can, nevertheless, be manipulated, as we are seeing in UKIP at the present time. It should be a statutory requirement, that the members' selected candidate choices, are counted by neutral agencies. Trust must be paramount in any electoral system.
Following an election based on PR, governments emerge from the chaos, with compromise and instability endemic to the sysytem. That may be necessary, but it cannot ba a cause for rejoicing. Indeed corruption in politics will increase. Advocates of PR argue that one man one vote, must imply one vote one value. That is precisely what it doesn't guarantee, coalitions of small parties provide the majorities, without which, dominant parties cannot obtain power. (Hardly one vote one value).
Single Transferable Votes (STV) complicates and clouds the issue further. Not enthusiastic for PR, I feel that it will almost certainly arrive, but enthusiasm for it, should be deemed a compulsory notifiable illness.
|