On May 5th 2011, an extra vote will be added to those already due to be cast in the local, Scottish and Welsh elections – a referendum on electoral reform. In November, this branch of the Fabian Society plans to host a debate on the same issue. It therefore seems a reasonable time to examine the implications of this change to the Commons voting system, should it be passed.
We currently elect members of parliament using the first past the post system – a simple single vote per constituent, and the candidate with the most wins. Numerous criticisms have been levelled at this system, such as the fact that a candidate does not require a majority of 50% or more, merely the highest number of votes. The same applies to the country as a whole – a party can potentially gain power with the highest number of MPs, but not the majority of votes cast. It can therefore be deemed somewhat undemocratic. Under the current system, there is also the problem – not least in the Merseyside area – of safe seats, where many of the votes cast are effectively wasted as the same party will inevitably gain a huge majority each election. Although those in favour of retaining this system have long argued that it creates a stable government, the outcome of a hung parliament and subsequent formation of the coalition government this year surely discredit the certainty of that argument. However, FPTP does have the advantage of retaining a strong link between MPs and their constituents, and also of being relatively easy to understand.
The change proposed in the referendum would lead to the use of the alternative vote system for Commons elections. This retains the link with the constituency, but instead of casting a single vote the electorate rank the candidates in order of preference. The winner requires a majority of 50% or more, and if this is not achieved initially then the one with the lowest number of votes leaves the contest and their second votes are reallocated until it is. Though slightly more complicated, it cannot really be called that much more trying than FPTP, and it does fix the problem of MPs gaining power without the majority support of their constituency (though not parties entering government without a country-wide majority). The emphasis on second preferences would certainly favour smaller parties, not least the Liberal Democrats.
If introduced, AV could potentially lead to more coalition governments in future, and therein lies a problem which can be illustrated by the referendum itself. A proposal for a referendum on electoral reform was not in the manifesto of the Conservative party, who won the most seats in the Commons under the current system. It was a pledge of the Liberal Democrats, who came third. It is therefore true that a majority of the country did not vote for this referendum, and yet it is being imposed. Coalition governments involve a lot of compromise, as we are currently witnessing, and ultimately it may transpire that no one gets what they voted for. Although we currently have a coalition elected using FPTP, the history of this system shows that this is rarely the outcome.
There are of course many other forms of voting system which are not currently being considered for use in general elections. Many still argue the benefits of proportional representation, although it seems unlikely that any of the major parties would introduce a system which would almost guarantee them losing much of their power. With the Conservatives formally opposed to AV, and Labour also likely to advocate the ‘no’ vote, it seems unlikely that this referendum will achieve its aim. However, the debate over whether it is time to alter the voting system seems set to continue indefinately.
