The case for reform of our electoral system is overwhelming yet hour after hour we hear vested interests defending the indefensible. The Observer had a series of diagrams making the case yesterday.
Under the present ‘first past the post’ system, the following scenarios are possible.
Equal share of vote = unequal seats
Conservative 30% of the popular vote 206 seats (32% of seats)
Labour 30% 315 (48% )
LibDem 30% 100 (15% )
Other 10% 29 ( 4% )
Party with lowest share of the popular vote gets most seats
Conservative 33% 257 (39% of seats )
Labour 27% 262 (40% )
LibDem 30% 102 (16% )
Other 10% 29 ( 4% )
This is beyond parody. Every time a party spokesmouth churns out the mantra, ‘first past the post produces strong government’ remember these figures. Even the Tories would balk at these scenarios – wouldn’t they?
Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society Dr Ken Ritchie said, “This campaign is looking less and less like an election and more like a game of roulette….. Uncertainty over who will get most support is natural and necessary in Britain’s staid elections. But uncertainty over how our antiquated system will decide who wins at Westminster is not. A system that can make the first last, and the last first, is simply unacceptable.
We need a system that can deliver the will of the people not by accident but by design. A change to the Single Transferable Vote system would give us a parliament that reflects the votes cast, and leave a majority of voters with the satisfaction that someone they supported is at Westminster to represent their views.”
STV is the preferred system of the politically neutral Electoral Reform Society. It is time we knew a lot more about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment