• Should MPs get to vote on electoral reform?

    by
    Anthony Butcher
    Published on 01-02-2010 08:17 PM
    17 Comments Comments
    Next week will see a vote by MPs on proposed changes to the electoral system. The decision that they are being asked to make is about an 'Alternative Vote' system to replace the current First Past the Post method that we use for General Elections. According to the BBC, Labour is divided over the issue, the Tories are against it and the Lib Dems say it doesn't go far enough. But why are their divisions along party lines?

    The real problem is that our MPs simply can't be trusted to vote in our best interests on this issue - their jobs are at stake. Electoral 'Reform' is a political ploy, not a desire for real change, unfortunately. It's not about reform, it's about staying in power.

    Labour's 1997 manifesto, before they came to power, included a rock solid commitment to holding a referendum on introducing a form of Proportional Representation. As soon as they realised their majority was safe, and there was no longer any advantage to supporting PR, the policy was dropped.

    Now Labour is looking for a way to avoid a hammering at the polls in May, or at the very least giving them a road back in 2015. The thinking is that anti-Tory sentiment is still strong in many areas and that Lib Dem voters are far more likely to put Labour as a second choice than the Conservatives.... hence the decision to go for the Alternative Vote system rather than the PR system they favoured ten years ago. Labour MPs will be basing their decision on whether they would be able to retain their seats under AV.

    The Tories, of course, oppose AV because it won't help them. Their best bet now is a massive swing under FPTP as Labour had in 1997. So Tory MPs will be voting to keep the status quo, knowing that it will maximise their chances not only of being re-elected but also bringing in many more Conservative MPs.

    For the Lib Dems, who lose out massively under FPTP, breaking the stranglehold that Labour and the Tories have over Parliament is essential. Even if AV is a useless system (it offers very little), the Lib Dems will support it in the hope that once old voting habits have been broken the country will be more inclined to accept PR.

    Given their vested interests in the electoral system, MPs simply can't be trusted to decide on our behalf how they should be elected. The only solution is to have a referendum and give the public a proper choice, after an informed debate.
    Comments 17 Comments
    1. Anthony Butcher's Avatar
      I voted 'Yes' in the poll. As per the link in my signature, I support electoral reform, and demonstrating that the sky isn't going to fall in if we don't have a FPTP system for General Elections is worth switching to this half-arsed system for now.
      Reply
    1. rjt's Avatar
      No, FPTP should stay and more direct democracy should be introduced.
      Reply
    1. Britt Andrew Prowd's Avatar
      AV will do nothing.

      We want either proper change or more direct democracy.

      I quite like the idea of Anthony's Regional Top-Up.
      Reply
    1. Richard Allen's Avatar
      No way.

      AV is a truly awful method and would most likely lead to even bigger landslides for a party that has a good victory.
      Reply
    1. Austin Sheridan's Avatar
      I don't agree with the reform they are proposing, I would support a mix of FPTP constituencies and PR through regional Party list.
      Reply
    1. Exorcist's Avatar
      FPTP combined with some form of DD to enable the electorate to reverse or block damaging or unpopular legislation. There has been far too much of that sort of legislation "Whipped" through both Houses of Parliament during the last 50 years aided by the unacknowledged and secret co-operation of the major political parties as we know to our cost. I am completely against the idea that seems to have been planted on the DD thread by the "usual suspect" that DD should be limited to Local issues and I will add my contribution in that respect in the near future. Lovers of comedy please book your tickets in advance.
      Reply
    1. Millennium3's Avatar
      It is heartening to see how many have started to believe that DD is probably the best, if not the only, way of breaking the grip of the self interested and self serving politicians presently pretending to represent the electorate.

      If all of the eurosceptic parties united under this single issue [after all it was the lack of DD which allowed the LT to be ratified in the first place] and it could be introduced - each party would be able to present their own version, of the changes they would choose, to the voters for them to decide.

      Also there are many pressure groups, not primarily or not even eurosceptic, who may also see DD as the way to achieve their ends.
      Reply
    1. roostifer's Avatar
      Let's be honest is this coming up now because the Govt. really wants change or is it, as I suspect, a bone thrown to the Lib Dims hoping for their support in the increasingly likelihood of a hung Parliament?

      Brown and his dishonest deceitful bunch of clowns will try anything to cling onto power. Does anyone actually believe that he will carry out the review if he somehow manages to cling on?

      The chances of it becoming law before the election are almost non-existent and the Scottish **** is treating the electorate as fools, once more.
      Reply
    1. g hall's Avatar
      Perhaps if we could put the word REPRESENTATIVE back into representative democracy we might be better off
      Reply
    1. Britannist's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by Richard Allen View Post
      No way.
      The usage of Alternative Vote (AV) for electing MPs is supported by some europhiles because they think pro-EU MPs would hold their seats or be replaced by pro-EU MPs from another party at an election. As we know Richard - but for the benefit of any readers who do not - it could be very difficult for small parties such as anti-UK UKIP to win seats in the House of Commons at a General Election held using AV.

      Europhiles backing AV are deliberately not promoting AV+. For any readers who do not know it, AV+ is a voting system based on AV preferential voting but it is one which would also include seats in the House of Commons for some of those standing for parties which get a significant vote across the country but which win in hardly any or in any constituencies. UKIP might win a number of seats under AV+ if the number of places for parties not winning many or any constituencies was large enough.

      Europhiles in the Labour Party who back AV hope that the pro-EU Liberal 'Democrats' (LD) would support its implementation at General Elections. There are some in the LD Party who think that their party could hold on to some of the constituencies they have won at the last three General Elections under AV. Those in the LD Party who think this also take the view that UKIP - which they see as a threat given that UKIP beat them in the last two elections in vote share - would find it difficult to gain under AV.

      As Michael Crick pointed out on BBC 2 Newsnight yesterday - it appears that the UK Labour Government's possible proposal to hold a vote in the House of Commons on a referendum on AV for General Elections may be an attempt by the Labour Party to appeal for the eventual support of the pro-electoral reform LD Party in a Parliament with no overall majority after the next General Election should that be the result after the nation votes.

      Richard Allen wrote: AV.........would most likely lead to even bigger landslides for a party that has a good victory.
      This is a point which supporters of AV tend to avoid making. I have mentioned in a number of postings when AV has been discussed here before that if the last General Election had been held using AV the Labour Party would have had an even bigger majority in the House of Commons than it does now.

      Yesterday BBC 2 Newsnight reported that Prime Minister Gordon Brown MP may be about to suggest that a vote be held in the House of Commons on holding a referendum on the introduction of AV at General Elections.

      More on this at:

      UK Labour Government may back referendum on Alternative Vote for General Elections
      Reply
    1. mr possps's Avatar
      av is not pr,indeed it is far from it,take the aussie election of 2007 under av,the labor party got a maj of 16 over the other parties on 43.4% of the vote,if the election was run under first past the post,the labor party would have been 2 seats short of a maj,so richard is right,it will favour the party who gets the most votes,and it is even more less pr than first past the post is.
      Reply
    1. Britannist's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by mr possps View Post
      AV is not PR (proportional representation)....
      I mentioned in the first posting to the thread I opened on 2.2.2010 on the subject of Alternative Vote (AV) that "AV is not regarded as proportional by many advocates of proportional (PR) voting." That thread can be found here:

      UK Labour Government may back referendum on Alternative Vote for General Elections

      mrpossps wrote:...it (AV) will favour the party who gets the most votes - and it is even less PR than first past the post is.
      As I pointed out in posting number eleven to this thread - this (above quote) is an observation which supporters of AV tend to avoid making. I have mentioned in a number of postings when AV has been discussed here before that if the last General Election had been held using AV the Labour Party could have had an even bigger majority in the House of Commons than it does now.
      Reply
    1. paul's Avatar
      Here is a really wacky idea...

      Why not let the British Public vote on whether there should be electoral reform!!
      Reply
    1. Citizen67's Avatar
      These proposed AV changes are a con. AV would probably produced even worse results than First-Post-The-Post (FPTP) an incredibally disorted result that only favour the Labour Party.

      PR with the Single Tranverable Vote method is the only way forward. It is both proportional and uses preferential voting. It allows the voter not to waste their vote and to chose their prefered group of Parties. No Political Party entirely represents an invidual's beliefs, desires etc. you chose the best of the best of a bad lot, but then sometimes you feel that you going to waste your vote because your Party have not got a slightest chance of winning. STV does away with all of those problems.
      Reply
    1. paralreg's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by Britt Andrew Prowd View Post
      AV will do nothing.

      We want either proper change or more direct democracy.

      I quite like the idea of Anthony's Regional Top-Up.
      Parties abolished, voting made mandatory, candidates should be residents in their constituency for at least 1 year prior to election. Rolling parliaments with 25% standing for election every year, creating government continuity and allowing the introduction of new ideas and opinions.
      Reply
    1. Red Rackham's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by rjt View Post
      No, FPTP should stay and more direct democracy should be introduced.
      What is "direct democracy"?
      Reply
    1. Britannist's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by Red Rackham View Post
      What is "direct democracy"?
      Referendums - the Swiss Referendum system being one example.

      Europhile politicians in Switzerland have not managed to get legislation passed taking Switzerland into the EU because the Swiss people, quite rightly, have a say in referendums and voted twice against putting their nation under EU control.

      If the Swiss referendum system were used in our country the EU Constitution (Lisbon 'Treaty') would have been rejected by the voters in a national referendum.
      Reply