The blunt choice is between first past the past and a flawed system that no one understands, argues Brian Donohoe
Everyone is talking about MPs’ expenses and the whole fuss is hitting the major parties – particularly Labour. This means some peripatetic voters are looking towards more extreme or fringe parties. So what could happen if there was a general election right now? Under the current first-past-the-post system, it is likely that one of the major parties would still command a working majority. However, if the House of Commons were elected under new rules determined by one of the myriad forms of proportional representation, how many wild cards would find their way into Westminster? And how comfortable would the country feel if a bunch of extremists used their collective votes to affect major legislation – effectively blocking the will of the majority of voters?
Whatever anyone feels about politicians and expenses, the expenses system is being addressed and people will eventually return to judging politicians on other issues, such as helping the country through the recession. By that time, a vote under PR may have a radically different outcome. And therein lies one of its major defects: its extreme potential for volatility and the danger of the governance of this country waving like grass in the prevailing wind, with the gates to power wide open to extremists.
But that is not the only case against PR. As a Westminster MP representing a Scottish constituency, I have studied PR in practice. There are so many types and, depending on which type is used, you can affect how voters are represented. Potentially, PR is open to abuse.
Voting in Scotland used to be under FPP, where the candidate with the highest vote was the winner. People knew exactly who they were voting for and the system was simple and transparent. Now, however, Scottish voters are saddled with PR for European elections, the Scottish Parliament and local government. All three use different systems and that’s just the start of the problems.
In the European elections, you don’t vote for a candidate, but for a party. Voters have no influence on who exactly represents them. For the Scottish Parliament, there’s a mixture of FPP and another form of PR, the additional member system. Seventy-three MSPs are directly elected, but another 56 are determined from a list according to a mechanism called the d’Hondt formula. They are referred to as “list members”. Once again, the exact outcome is out of voters’ hands. For local government elections, Scotland uses what many regard as the classic system of PR – the single transferable vote. Under STV, you select an order of preference of candidates instead of putting just one cross on the ballot paper. The final result under the STV system is calculated using another type of mathematical formula, so once again it’s effectively impossible to know for whom you’re voting.
Over the years, many different formulae have been developed, as previous versions have fallen out of favour. The ramifications of PR at local level are worth mentioning. In Central Ayrshire, I have talked to many local councillors of differing political persuasion. Without exception, they resent the distance that PR has created between them and the people they represent. For example, instead of one councillor in a town such as Irvine representing a ward of 4,400, four councillors together represent 25,000 people. With such large numbers, they feel they cannot be totally on top of the situation and many fear they are letting the public down.
As well as being unfair, these different systems of PR are extremely bewildering. A recent report for the Electoral Commission concluded that most voters in Scotland are at best ill-informed and at worst confused about the STV and AMS. Just how fair is a voting system that leaves so many perplexed? And why have so many PR systems been developed over the years? The answer can surely only be that PR doesn’t work.
One of the latest systems being touted around Westminster is alternative vote-plus This was developed just over 10 years ago in an attempt to combine the best principles of FPP and PR. Unfortunately, it is so complex that it would confuse and possible alienate many voters. What is more, at the heart of AV-plus, as with others forms of PR, are a group of people who no one has elected, but who are taking key decisions about how AV-plus is calculated. These people have the power to sway elections, which effectively renders voting meaningless.
The more that the advocates of voting reform try to develop compromise systems, the more bogged down such systems will become. So unless someone can come up with an alternative to FPP which is not a passport for extremism or is not so complex that people are confused about who they’re voting for, then FPP remains the best and fairest system available.
Brian Donohoe is Labour MP for Central Ayrshire and joint chairman of the First Past the Post All-Party Group
