6 hours ago
7
If the system that elects MPs to Westminster was obviously the most democratic one available, there would be no need to use alternative modes when electing the UK’s devolved assemblies or England’s regional mayors. The fact that first past the post (FPTP) was not preferred when establishing those institutions reflects an acceptance that there are better ways to turn popular opinion into fair political representation. So why should the Commons stick with an inferior system?
This question is raised by an amendment tabled to the representation of the people bill, which returns to parliament next week. The call to establish an independent national commission on electoral reform has been endorsed by 185 MPs.
Andy Burnham has backed electoral reform in the past and, as the Guardian reported this week, pressure is growing on the prime minister to translate that view into action: 98 Labour MPs have signed the amendment. For technical reasons related to the scope of the bill, the electoral reform question is unlikely to be put to a vote, but the scale of backbench support compels the prime minister to reaffirm his commitment to change.
Downing Street has made it clear that Mr Burnham does indeed back reform but, in deference to the manifesto he inherited from Sir Keir Starmer, accepts that there is no mandate to legislate this side of a general election. That is the constitutionally proper position, but it doesn’t preclude steps that will help win the argument when the time comes. Electoral reformers are haunted by defeat in the 2011 referendum on switching to the alternative vote model – a flawed rival to FPTP that was opposed by the Tories, then the senior party in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. The Labour party in opposition was divided.
Back then, the two largest English parties expected their duopolistic hold on Westminster to continue indefinitely. They had few incentives to change a system that suppresses small-party representation. What suited Labour and the Conservatives did not tally with voter preferences, as demonstrated by a steady trend of fragmenting allegiances.
Opinion polls show Labour, the Conservatives and Reform UK jostling for support at levels between one-fifth and one-third of national vote share. In devolved and local elections, the Greens, Liberal Democrats and Scottish and Welsh nationalists complicate the picture still further.
With multiple parties polling within a few points of each other, FPTP can propel a candidate to victory on a tiny margin and against the wishes of a clear majority of voters. This is a recipe for chaos and disenchantment – conditions that British politics has endured too much in recent years.
Delivering stable government is supposed to be a virtue of FPTP. Another is the link between MPs and their constituents, although elements of this can be retained with hybrid systems that also have a proportional element, such as multimember constituencies or combined list and constituency ballots.
There is no perfect voting system, but the potential pitfalls of alternatives are not a good enough reason to stick with a status quo that threatens such a perverse outcome as to delegitimise the democratic process. The clamour for reform would then be irresistible. Preparations to modernise the way parliament is elected, and win public support for change, should begin well before that crisis point is reached.
