On face value David Cameron's proposals look attractive, but one has to ask whether this is a convenient Damascine conversion! I would find it incredible if Cameron knew nothing about some of the expenses claims made beforehand and, whilst all credit to him for making some progress, is he going to do more to discipline some of his Shadow Cabinet for the claims they made? Will any of them be standing down at the next general election? It seems a bit too neat and tidy for my liking, and before anyone asks, yes I think Labour's NEC should do more in dealing with their own miscreants.
One aspect of electoral reform that has intrigued me for a while now though is AV. It seems fair, tidy, helps engage the electorate more, does not automatically lead to coalition governments, and all credit to Alan Johnson and Ed Miliband for considering it publicly.
5 comments:
AV should be introduced for the next general election. It would need a one line bill, require no redrawing of boundaries and ensure that every MP has the support of over 50% in their constituency. Alas it is not proportional, but still better than what we have at present.
Alan Johnson is actually calling for something called AV+ which adds a little proportionality with 120 regional MPs on top of 500 constituency MPs. It was recommended in 1998 by the Jenkins Report. Labour never followed through on their manifesto promise to give us a referendum on it. I think we should finally honour that promise and have the referendum on the day of the next general election. Give people a real say, not the fiddling at the edges that Cameron is trying to paint as 'radical change'.
Am aware of AV + and read of Johnson's consideration for that brand of AV. I think it's an idea worth considering, but am more wedded to AV itself at the moment
Would it be compulsory to full preference or optional? (Australia uses both - compulsory at the federal level, optional in some states.) But even if preferencing is compulsory can it really be said an MP "has the support of over 50% in their constituency" if some of that support is basically forced to pick one over the other or, worse still, cast a disinterested "donkey vote" in ballot paper order? And if preferencing is optional then many votes will not transfer.
Studies have found the main electoral feature of AV compared to FPTP is that it tends to, if anything, increase the swings in elections, often devastating opposition parties and increasing the government majority. It also has next to no impact on the sort of MPs you get elected - they will still be chosen by the parties and many will still have "safe seats". Unsurprisingly it's never caught on amongst electoral reformers. The main country to use it is Australia and it was adopted there not because of high minded desire for "reform" but for pure partisan advantage as the emergence of the Country Party threatened to split the anti-Labor vote.
tim, AV would allow me and millions of others to put our first preference first followed by a tactical vote, so i could show support for the greens, then labour and still give the lib dem a vote if they could beat the tories. But of course you are correct that it is not a proportional system, so still gives majorities to a party with a minority of the vote and will do little to make safe seats more competitive. For that reason i prefer a proper PR system or STV.
oh and i think if we gonna introduce AV better that people rank all the candidates.
Post a Comment