The Saint
DEVILS ADVOCATE: Election reform?
YES
Emma Hinds
I am not an IR student, or a political philosophy student, but even I, after my limited research, can see that electoral reform is necessary if our society claims to operate in a democracy in which voters are fairly represented.
With the possibility of a hung parliament looming, every candidate appears to believe that the current FPTP electoral system is insufficient. After an election in 1974 where Conservatives won more votes than Labour but fewer seats, CAER (Conservative Action for Electoral Reform) was formed to campaign for the STV system.
Nick Clegg is plugging Proportional Representation, having stated recently that Electoral reform is an absolute pre-condition for renewal in this country, and even the Labour party, who benefit from the current system suggest that an AV system would be fairer.
Granted, plugging electoral reform is a card well played in the current political climate of suspicion against politicians, but it is still about time. A parliamentary candidate who preferred not to be named pointed out: At present we have a system whereby lots of seats have not changed hands in the last fifty years, and where a party that has broad public support but lacks built up local support will fail to get its proper representation.
Without electoral reform we have voters in unchangeable constituencies whose votes are more or less useless in a general election, voting against the party they dont want rather than for the party they do. Even if FPTP produces a stronger majority government, it doesnt necessarily produce the government the majority wanted. The government should be strengthened by trust that could be renewed in Parliament, if people felt they were being fairly represented.
The Times declared that: This newspaper is strongly in favour of the public being able to kick out governments it dislikes. The strength of the public vote to do anything of the sort will continue to be compromised and unrealistic unless electoral reform happens in Britain
NO
Gabriel Puliatti
It sure sounds unfair that a party like Labour could retain a majority in the House of Commons with fewer votes than others, with the Tories and Liberal Democrats needing around 8% more to achieve the same number of MPs. Even worse, current predictions show how a party could still be the largest in parliament and the smallest in the vote.
However, we shouldnt let a faulty system blind us and replace it with an even worse system. First Past The Post may seem unrepresentative, but it does a good job. Democracy isnt about votes won or lost, but ideals represented.
With a recent trend towards anti-politics and disillusionment with politicians, the worst thing that can be done is remove the link between MP and constituency. Once that is removed, as would happen, then there is no longer accountability to your local voters. Expenses abuse? You seek for protection from the party leader. Lying to voters where you campaigned? Well, voters in Somerset will give your party enough votes and you keep your seat. Identifying and holding your representative accountable is more important than ever.
The same trend has also fuelled a rise in extremist fringe parties. The BNP and UKIP would certainly hold much more power than their limited support would give them, since they will likely be needed by either Labour or the Conservatives (or even Lib Dems) to maintain a coalition. An Italian prime minister can be taken down because a 3-person party decides to switch to the other side. Do we really want a system which would make Nick Griffin or Alex Salmond kingmaker?
It is not, then, a matter of which system is more representative of the vote at the general election. The electoral system should be that which allows people to be represented by people, not by parties. It should be one which will allow smaller rural areas to also have a voice. One which doesnt allow small parties to hold government hostage. The system may not be perfect, but lets not make it worse.
More from Viewpoint
