Suddenly, after 27 years of near-silence people other than political geeks are talking about a need for electoral reform.
It's a subject I have views on, of course I do, but I've never felt a passion for it. I haven't perceived any great desire for it in all the time I've been politically active. It doesn't come up on doorsteps or in pubs, when people are more concerned about public services, the economy and social justice
Anybody with an A-Level in politics can write an essay outlining all the various different systems and the textbook pros and cons of them all. Essentially, they boil down to whether you want your representatives to be closely identifiable with and accountable to a defined geographical area or whether you want your party of choice to have a share of people elected that reflects, at least broadly, the share of votes cast for them.
It's really important to emphasise how much many people value the perception that they 'know' their MP and councillors. This is probably not important to people whose community is virtual or have few ties to the area they happen to live. But it's vitally important to people who care - often passionately - about their area and who use services, many of which are area based.
An effective councillor knows every street and tower block in their ward, and is well acquainted with the chair of every residents' association and school governors. Similarly with MPs although with less detail. Irrespective of party, a good constituency MP is known throughout the constituency and on balance is liked and/or respected irrespective of party allegiances.
This isn't just about wanting councillors and MPs to be Super-Caseworkers, because both have a duty to scrutinise and be strategic. I want my representatives to think beyond potholes, but I also want them to be acutely aware of the impact of their policies on the wide range of people they represent. Politicians are often accused of being out of touch, often by journalists who wouldn't dream of visiting the estates and day centres, or don't have the opportunities to hear how ordinary people are struggling, be it with anti-social behaviour, access to services, benefits trap and childcare, or any of the other myriad commonplace problems people raise with their representatives. It's not good enough merely to know the theoretical textbook says.
A local connection is the biggest advantage of First Past the Post and would be preserved with an AV system (and weakened with AV+).
For European Elections and for the London Assembly, the 'fair share' system works reasonably well. It's important to have MEPs that understand and represent the interest of my region on a wider stage. It allows for smaller parties to get elected. In the case of the Greens, this is undoubtedly a Good Thing (I am currently writing as a student of politics rather than a tribalist); in the case of the BNP it appears to be a bad thing, but I'm relaxed about them: the more scrutiny they get, the more odious they appear. Their annihilation in Barking and Dagenham reflects previous results nationwide - they get elected by mobilising the support of people whose racism is passive and lazy, who feel hopeless and need to blame the poor sod one step higher or lower on the relative ladder of life. Once these people become aware of the BNP's active violent racism and their incompetence in office, they turn away from them.
I have read a lot of people complaining that their views or preferences go unrepresented. Someone was shown on the TV yesterday saying that not getting the MP of your choice is akin to getting apple pie when you order cheesecake. It's not: there is a difference between individual and collective choice.
However, that doesn't deny the broader point that for many people going out to vote seems like a waste of time. People who live in safe seats held continuously by a party they dislike intensely are often forced to choose between the party they prefer or the one they dislike but perceive as being the best placed to defeat the incumbent. They often feel they might as well stay at home. If they guess wrongly who is challenger, that feels even worse.
I don't think that the Alternative Vote system would really address that.
Suppose I lived in a constituency which was Tory held, reasonably safe but not impregnable, with Lib Dems generally well behind in second place and Labour in third. I would have voted Labour on Thursday but would have found it difficult to persuade others not to vote LibDem: I guess I would have put my campaigning efforts into a neighbouring area.
Under AV, I would happily have voted Labour, and guessed that my first vote would be eliminated. So I suppose I would have lent my alternative vote to the Lib Dems (unless I had several alternative votes, in which case Greens would have got my second). If the plan worked as predicted, there would be a good chance that the Lib Dems would have got elected as being the second preference of Labour, Green etc voters in addition to their actual supporters.
But I would still be left with an MP who doesn't support my views. And if the electorate behaved differently, the Tory MP who under FPTP gets say 40% of votes, could end up being elected with 60 or 70% of ultimate votes, reinforcing the Big Majority. This system would probably mean more LibDems elected, but I don't think it would actually make any great difference to parties such as the Greens (or UKIP, BNP etc).
The other extreme is to go for a party list system. You can dress it up with endless variations and fancy names but ultimately you vote for the party. It would be conducted on a much wider geographical basis than FPTP or AV. I reckon local to me the smallest area that could be sustained is about four Boroughs - say Lambeth, Southwark, Wandsworth and Lewisham, roughly one eighth of London. This would mean we elect about ten MPs in "Inner Sarf London". Perhaps a quarter of London would be preferable, so 20 MPs (roughly, I haven't actually totted up the precise numbers, I'm trying to make the arithmetic easier).In Inner Sarf, I would expect 4-6 Labour MPs, perhaps they could have one or more that 'specialises' in Lambeth, but I couldn't realistically demand they have instinctive intimate knowledge of local concerns.
Any party getting 10% of the vote would be guaranteed an MP in Inner Sarf London. For South West quadrant it would mean only 5%. This would mean that Parliament would approximately reflect the political preferences by party of votes cast. It would change voting behaviour. People would feel happier to vote for the Greens, for example, and probably most importantly would stop voting 'anti'.
Psychologically, that is a massive change - and I have no idea how it will play out. I suspect in time it will lead to far more smaller parties, as the artificial coalitions within the Big Three are no longer relevant pre-election. At the moment, you have to accept the coalition and ensuing compromises put forward by the party that most closely echoes your views; under a system more proportional you'd have to gird yourself for surprise coalitions and compromises you don't envisage or desire (which could never happen under FPTP, /sarcasm).
I suspect a plethora of smaller parties would have some unforeseen consequences because they would probably lack the expertise and sheer numbers to run an effective campaign. A well-oiled campaigning machine, with bodies running round the streets on a Thursday evening can make a big difference currently in marginal seats and potentially to vote share, but there is a risk of poorly targeted and under-resourced campaigns leading to lower turn-out. On the other hand, more people might get involved with a party which is a closer match than the loose unsatisfactory coalition they end up supporting at elections. Alternatively, there is the risk of endless fragmenting like the Judean People's Front!
I don't think it's enough to offer 'electoral reform' and hope that *everyone* agrees. Constitutional reform is messy and takes time - Parliamentary (and thus that of officials) time to process the legislation, plus it's one of those areas where I think it best to establish a broad consensus rather than forcing through legislation on a Three Line Whip.
I have always felt, right back to Sixth Form, that 'Lords Reform' should go hand-in-hand in with changing the way votes are counted (that's a way to solve the dilemma between local and proportional).
I also believe it makes little sense to do all that without considering the Monarchy. I suppose we could do nothing till the Old Dear pops her clogs, but if Charles had a scrap of decency in him, he'd indicate his willingness to submit to a referendum. Or if not him, William, who is rumoured to have no desire for the job so long as he can keep his wealth. But as was illustrated in Australia, a referendum has to be worded right. Also, the wrong result would end up legitimising the monarchy and closing the question off.
Five years ago I wrote about Electoral Fraud, and yet despite my blogpost, nothing has changed. There are questions to be asked about whether Thursday is the right day - although I also feel there are strong arguments against Sunday voting. I have mixed feelings about Fixed Term Parliaments, and I strongly oppose cutting back on the number of MPs, unless it could be accompanied by a similar restriction on the number of ministers and shadows - otherwise it would be a cull of potentially independent-minded backbenchers vital for scrutiny.
