What are people trying to achieve when they vote in a general election? Reformers argue we want to change the voting system because it disenfranchises millions, wastes votes, is unrepresentative – but we need to know what people want to achieve when they vote in a General Election.
The voter is making three distinct choices.
• Choosing an MP to represent the interests of an area
• Electing a parliament to reflect the diversity of the nation
• Picking the best government to run the country for the next five years
It’s a three-in-one vote. Think of it as a well-known confectionary – say, a Tunnocks teacake – biscuit base (constituency representative), yummy marshmallow centre (House of Commons) and crisp chocolate coating (the Government). However, the nature of these choices is quite different.
The choice of an individual MP is definitive, normally polarised between two candidates Con-Lab or Con-Lib but with an increasing number of Lab-Lib. The election of a parliament is non-definitive. There can be as many parties as one likes, mixed in whatever proportions.
The choice of a government is again definitive. In 2010 there will be only two realistic possibilities, Labour and Conservative to choose between. In the UK we make all three choices through a single vote. We try to do this through a very imperfect voting system that has remained largely unchanged since the first Parliament of 1265 was created by Simon de Montfort as means of territorial control. It’s a system that predates the existence of governments and political parties by several centuries.
We now expect this voting system to accomplish a task for which it was never designed, rolling these three choices into one. People choose their MP and they make their choice of government. In practice, voters – sensing the con perhaps – tend to short-circuit this process by choosing their MPs not for their intrinsic qualities as public representatives but on the basis of their party labels as the proxy vote for choosing the government. The quality of the candidates is often immaterial. So the system we have is like feeding voters a diet solely of Tunnocks teacakes and expecting them to feel part of a healthy body politic.
In a modern democracy, it doesn’t have to be done this way. In some countries the voter has two votes – one for the MP and one for the party. Or you can have a vote for a local MP/senator and another for a president who then appoints the administration as they do in America. This means voters know they are voting for a government when they vote for the President.
To the ordinary voter PR appears like a techni-coloured dreamcoat of possible voting systems. In 1998, AV+, the Jenkins system that largely reflects the votes offers stable government and preserves the idea of a local MP. It elegantly meets the needs of all three choices in one.
No-one, in any political party, who wants to be taken seriously as a democrat can argue against a referendum on voting reform to be held as soon as possible.
Action update: We have a voting reform amendment to the Constitutional and Governance Bill now passing through parliament. We are promised a debate in January. We could have a referendum by October 2010. If you want to join in, do contact LCER
Stop making us all sick on marshmallow politics.