The problem for the Conservatives is too many of them are far too conservative to be anything other than deeply uncomfortable with any kind of change to the constitutional and electoral compromises and peculiarities that history has handed down to us. An unquestioning attachment to the tried and tested is a recurrent theme of conservatism going back to Burke.

So Ed, why don't you instigate a judicial review then?

I don't know the law from my elbow, but surely if we're currently operating under an electoral system that's illegal under international law we shouldn't have to wait for our Government to do anything, should we?

At least start a bloody facebook page or something...

I would like to wake up on May the 7th at 9am with a smiling Gordon Brown on the doorstep of 10 Downing Street saying Labour now needs to learn and listen...having come 3rd in the share of the vote, but holding on to power with the most seats. Then the camera would switch to Conservative HQ where the activists and Dave would have a not so smilie face, having won the most votes, but come 2nd in the number of seats using a system he claimed and proclaimed as being Fair. I'd like to hear what he says then...
He wouldnt be able to say Labour lost, because they didnt...they lost in the vote count but not the seat count and thats all that matters...isnt it? He couldnt say his party had won because well they hadnt...and he coulnt say this result is unfair because he knew the rules and he refused to change them.
I'd love to see that grin erased from his plastic face when he learns he is not PM Cameron, but Cameron MP...5 more years as Leader of the Opposition

Agreed - this current duopoly has to end. It is directly responsible for the infantile nature of political debate and voter cynicism in the UK.

Whichever party takes power in this election we need a public campaign for fair PR to hold them to account. Labour broke a manifesto commitment to introduce PR in 1997 and we should not assume that getting PR through parliament will happen even if the LibDems hold the balance of power.

I'd like to see newspapers like The Guardian, Independent and Observer now adopting a pro-PR editorial position and working to ensure it happens this time.

viscountbiscuit, did you read the article? He says he was a Tory and that he's long been a supporter of reform.

LordShawlands - If the election goes as described, I can't see Cameron lasting 5 days let alone 5 years and he will the be abe to join Hague, Duncan-Smith and howard in the ex-tory leaders' who lost whist drive.

Are you from Shawlands or in Shawlands?

Since apparently the only job David Cameron has ever had was in PR, perhaps he is confused into thinking PR is a backwards step, or too much like work.

For too many Conservatives, elections are not about democracy or the will of the people: they are about power.

How about "almost all Conservatives"? And, it's been suggested that under some form of PR, the Tories might not enjoy real, unfettered power ever again. Turkeys don't normally vote for Christmas.

According to the BBC's seat calculator, if each of the major parties gained 30% of the vote, under the UK's grossly-distorted system, the Labour party would get 315 MPs, the Conservatives 206 and the Liberal Democrats only 100.

I seem to remember the Tories enjoying more-than-manageable majorities on around 40% of the vote. So, the situation's changed a little. Is this why some of the turkeys might be rethinking their attitude to Christmas?

I played with the BBC's seat calculator as well.

Giving Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Other each 25% of the vote resulted in

314 seats for Labour,
208 seats for the Conservatives,
99 seats for the Liberal Democrats and
29 seats for other parties.

Now any such gadget might well be prone to error, especially given such unlikely swings to play with. But still I find it hard to understand how people can look at such anomalous outcomes - be they theoretical or real - and still maintain that there is no justification for electoral reform.

LordShawlands - If the election goes as described, I can't see Cameron lasting 5 days let alone 5 years and he will the be abe to join Hague, Duncan-Smith and howard in the ex-tory leaders' who lost whist drive.

Prior to Hague the tories had never had a leader who didn't become PM. Parties ditch leaders too quickly these days. One failure does not mean failure forever.

However, you are right, although perhaps a little generous giving Cameron 5 minutes.

I agree.

Up until now, many proponents of PR have fantasised that PR will mean a permanent Lib-Lab coalition. Polly Toynbee has said in the past that this is what she wanted.

Personally, I'm not so sure. I think PR would kill Labour stone dead. As the article says, Labour have historically been the biggest beneficiary of FPTP.

The Labour Left would vote for a SWP-type party and others would vote for the BNP leaving a rump of tribal Labour voters who vote Labour basically because their fathers did.

The Lib Dems would split between the Orange Book and the more left-wing groups.

The Tories would lose out to UKIP but also I think there would be room for another centre-right party who would mop-up votes from people who have broadly rightwing views but have an historical dislike of the Tories (an awful lot of Labour voters I know fit into this category).

Of course, UKIP, the Greens and the BNP would all do well from PR but the over-arching losers would be Labour.

Bring it on.

marginal seats ? and these have been bought, he hopes, with Lord Ashcroft's millions.

For too many Conservatives, elections are not about democracy or the will of the people: they are about power.

As opposed to Labour using union money to pay for seats and put forward Union leaders for safe seats?

Only a fool or a vested interest would call our supposed democratic system in this country, democratic. We have been fools for far too long in accepting the status quo.

Given that FPTP is one of the most common means of determining elections throughout the democratic world, the idea that it is somehow 'illegal' is risible.

The Liberal Democrat desire for PR is as securely rooted in electoral advantage as the Tory desire to keep things as they are.

The current system has the advantage of simplicity, and everyone understands it.

List based systems are merely a means of ensuring jobs of life for apparatchiks.

Other systems are obviously available, but many governments elected via PR are weak. Look at Israel or Belgium for examples today. Or Italy for that matter in the recent past.

I think in Germany one party has been in power for decades, simply by changing one coalition for another. The inability to get rid of people from power isn't going to help restore our faith in politics.

A larger, multi-candidate constiuencies don't appeal either. It dilutes local
knowledge of the representative for one thing. My local MP will be responsible for bits of Snowdonia, Caernarvon and Bangor.

Add in the four or so nearest constiuencies and you've got a huge area of half North Wales. No way can any one person have as good a knowledge of everything from Llandudno to Pwllheli and from Holyhead to Dolgellau.

So i'd get represented by five people who know a little rather than one person who is on the ball.

Let's see how the Conservatives proposed boundary changes and equalising of constituency sizes alters things.

BrownOutNow

As opposed to Labour using union money to pay for seats and put forward Union leaders for safe seats?

The Tories brought in laws restricting how unions can use their members money and members of unions have to agree to political levies. There is no such democratic accountability involved in rich men buying political parties to advance their own vested interests.

BTW - for all that this issue is dominating the Gaurdian, doe sanyone seriously think the man/woman in the street gives a monkeys?

Bangorstu

I think in Germany one party has been in power for decades, simply by changing one coalition for another. The inability to get rid of people from power isn't going to help restore our faith in politics.

In Britain one party has been in for decades because they have to kow tow to a few thousand votes in a few constituencies to win while the rest of the country can take a run and jump. It is meaningless if that party is called NuLabour or NuConservative, they are the same.

@whathavetheydone

Many thanks for pointing out the bleedin' obvious to @viscountbiscuit

Sometimes I despair of the intelligence displayed by numerous commenters here?

If you want to combine a link to the constituency with proportionality then single transferable vote is probably the best bet. This was an English invention after all. I think, however, that much of the UK electorate would find some of the results that this system produces counter-intuitive, as it has become accustomed to the relatively simplistic logic of FPTP elections. This is why Cameron thinks the "kick out the scoundrels" defence of FPTP will work.
For example, a candidate with fewer first preference votes can still win a seat after transfers from eliminated or elected candidates are taken into account. I can imagine the Daily Mail crying foul about this type of possibility. Incidentally, Mary Robinson was elected President of Ireland in this manner. She went on to become one of the most popular Presidents in Irelands history.

An excellent article. Six million people voted Lib Dem in 2005 and how M.P.s did they get???
It's a type of democracy but not actually democracy! Is it?

@Bangorstu: Given that FPTP is one of the most common means of determining elections throughout the democratic world, the idea that it is somehow 'illegal' is risible.

Sorry, care to run that one past me again?

Presumably you're using an electorate count as your measure - I can't think how else you'd arrive at such a flawed conclusion. Outside the historical legacy bequeathed to former colonies, Single Member Plurality is conspicous by its virtual absence from the international electoral landscape - maybe you'd like to consider that when compared with our European cousins, the UK is the odd man out (again!)?

@ Bangorstu

I think in Germany one party has been in power for decades, simply by changing one coalition for another

.

What party are you talking about that apparently never loses office? The largest parties, the CDU and SPD regularly lost office before the recent grand coalition.

Why is coalition such bad thing in any case. The weighting of the cabinet broadly reflects the relative electoral strength of the parties anyway so if a party's votes decreases so does their influence in most situations. There has been grand coalition in Switzerland since the 1950s and the continuity in policy that it has produced has none done their economy and infrastructure any harm.

apologies "not done" not "none done"

David Cameron talks irrationally about the power to sack a government, when, in reality, the only voters properly enfranchised in the UK are those in marginal seats ? and these have been bought, he hopes, with Lord Ashcroft's millions.

Here we have it in a nutshell.

Even the Tories can't buy every voter in the UK, but they can flood the marginals with cash.

PR is the Big Issue of this campaign. I don't care if Cameron, Clegg or the ghost of Screaming Lord Such ends up as PM as long as we get PR.

Anyone here capable of doing a half-decent job of defending FPTP?

Bangorstu has had a go, and failed dismally.

As getoffmycloud points out, closed PR is by no means the only alternative to FPTP anyway. STV is certainly worthy of further investigation.

The problem with PR is that in terms of giving the voters what they want it only works if you can naively reduce the parties to a simple left-right axis. If you have two axes along which the parties differentiate there's a problem. LibDems and Tories are both keener on civil liberties than Labour, Labour and the Libdems are more to the left economically than the Tories. If you put a priority on civil liberties, you'll want a LibDem-Conservative coalition, if you don't care about civil liberties, you'll go for a LibDem-Labour coalition.

OK, so if you plot the three parties on a 2-D map you realise that you've just opened a gap for a right wing authoritarian party which previously couldn't exist because those voters had to diffuse themselves between the Conservatives (get their economic policies at the expense of their preferred authoritarianism, or Labour to get their authoritarianism at the expense of their economic preferences.

So the introduction of PR and the openness it gives to multiple parties boosts the right wing authoritarians.

Is this realistic? Well, look around guys and see in which type of elections the right wing authoritarianism parties have been more successful, FPTP or PR, i.e. Parliamentary or European elections? Ah look, the BNP got a couple of European seat when they've never been able to get a Paliamentary seat. Look across Europe from France (Le Pen) to Austria (Freedom Party) to the Netherlands (Geert Wilders). Gee, thanks all you 'progressives', you've just got parties we don't want into Parliament!

Secondly, in the example above, what policies will the LibDem voter actually be voting for? He wants economically of the left but strong on civil liberties, he's going to get one or the other, which he could have got anyway under FPTP, but unlike under FPTP he doesn't get to make the decision before he votes, it's made for him after the election in a process over which he has no control.

Congratulations again my 'progressive' friends, you've just taken power out of the voter's hands and put it in the politicians.

sorry but this naive rush to PR is just that naive, it's time people woke up to the pros and cons of different types of voting system. All PR systems have different problems, sometimes even being less representative than FPTP. So when you eulogise 'PR' what are you actually eulogising? Or is that sort of political sophistication too much to ask of you when you can just ignore the issues and bask in your self-righteous glow? If it's important that the electorate be involved in deciding the electoral system why weren't they in the driving system when Jenkins stitched up his preference of AV+?

If you want STV but not AV+, would you really want a rush to only offer AV+, or a more measured approach which allows better consideration of the alternatives by the voters?

The problem with PR are fourfold:
1. The Government can stay in power even though the a majority of the people want it gone. 1997 is a case in point (the people could see there was an alternative). 2010 is another (though in this case the people can't decide on someone to replace the incumbants) .
2. Policies get enacted that nobody votes for. Enacted policies are all about horse trading.
3. Minority parties get far too much power for the number of votes they get.
4. Coalition government is unstable. You don't need to look far to see it leads to poor Government and financial instability.

Democracy should give majority rule and minority rights. As such a beefed up 2nd chamber elected by PR should have blocking rights over legislation.

As to the lower house a party that achieves 40% of the vote with a 5% lead should get a majority of at least 1 seat. That said I also quite like the idea of top-up MPs based on the number of votes in a region a party got that are not reflected in the number of MPs the party got in that region. I would suggest that around a 20% of MPs should be elected in this way.

Luckily for viscountbiscuit, you don't have to read the article first in order to comment on it.

I have argued for some time that the Tories should embrace PR. Partly because the present system massively disadvantages them. And partly because they would, I think, be the largest party most of the time. It frustrates me that they are too stupid too see this, especially as PR could well destroy the Labour party. And that would be a very good think for the UK.

The problem with PR are fourfold:
1. The Government can stay in power even though the a majority of the people want it gone. 1997 is a case in point (the people could see there was an alternative). 2010 is another (though in this case the people can't decide on someone to replace the incumbants) .
2. Policies get enacted that nobody votes for. Enacted policies are all about horse trading.
3. Minority parties get far too much power for the number of votes they get.
4. Coalition government is unstable. You don't need to look far to see it leads to poor Government and financial instability.

Democracy should give majority rule and minority rights. As such a beefed up 2nd chamber elected by PR should have blocking rights over legislation.

As to the lower house a party that achieves 40% of the vote with a 5% lead should get a majority of at least 1 seat. That said I also quite like the idea of top-up MPs based on the number of votes in a region a party got that are not reflected in the number of MPs the party got in that region. I would suggest that around a 20% of MPs should be elected in this way.

74 nations use FPTP accoridng to Wikipaedia - for part of their democratic process. Including, incidentally, Germany for Presidential elections.

If someone can give me single member constituencies without party lists, then I'm agnostic about change.

I can see something needs to be done - but equalising the sizes of the constituencies will surely help iron out some of the unfairness.

Ironically, being a Tory, here in Wales PR has done my lot the power of good. And my two Tory list member AMs have been a damn sight more responsive than my Plaid constituency AM who simply ignored the e-mails I sent him on a particular issue. (tories took 5 mins to reply....)

But I don't think PR is necessarily better. It just has different negatives.

And PP - no matter what you say, Labour and the Tories are different parties.
No way would the Tories have given a minimum wage, no way would LAbour have had the vision to sell off council houses.

Getoffmycloud - don't know the party in question, which apparently always seems to have a minister no matter who is in power. It was mentioned on the radio yesterday. If the politician in question was talking rubbish, apologies...

We are unfortunate enough to have Bill Cash as our local MP. (Despite his UKIP leanings he would prefer to describe himself as a Conservative - but then he also tries to pretend he lives in the Stone, Staffordshire constituency when he really lives in Bridgenorth, Shropshire!)

What is really amazing is that over the last 3 elections his majorities have gone from 3818, to 6036, to 9089 - making this apperently safe Tory seat. But meanwhile the proportion of the electorate supporting him has gone from 36.7%, to 32.5%, to 32.3%.

So in the last 2 elections, the views of the remaining 67.5% of the electorate in our constituence have been completely ignored. Are we the ignored majority that Cameron is so concerned about I wonder???

Chris

Obviously I concur with the sentiments advanced here by the author

Any sane, rational and objective observer would conclude that Single Member Plurality (FPTP) was just about the worst voting method imaginable, if you are a voter - fantastic if you are a large highly organised political party trying to secure power but otherwise forget it!

No voting system is perfect but some are less imperfect than others!

Single Transferable Vote (STV) in relatively small constituencies represents the best compromise between the conflicting demands of locality (the Constituency link) and overall fairness (proportionality in the final National result).

@Bangorstu: The Liberal Democrat desire for PR is as securely rooted in electoral advantage as the Tory desire to keep things as they are.

Acutally @Bangorstu, this comment is risible in itself because if the LibDems were solely focused on electoral advantage, as you imply, they'd be arguing for AMS with a high degree of proportional top up and perhaps a 10% National threshold to shut out potential rivals like the Greens and Respect. In fact official LibDem policy is backing for STV, which in some cases will actually disadvantage them whilst promoting local democracy.

Care to rephrase your comment?

The Tories' ideological commitment to a system that shafts them is both bizarre and hilarious. But Cameron isn't a very ideological Tory so let's see what can be negotiated.

The best part of electoral reform is that a system that is more proportional wil encourage splits and the very fact of electoral reform (or a refusal to agree to it) can split both Labour and the Tories. If both these unwieldy coalitions split up Britain would be better.

LordShawlands

So you want a wholly undemocratic outcome solely to piss off David Cameron? Proof if I ever saw that the party loyalists (Labour and Tory) actually hold democracy in contempt.

@Skippyleb

If you are interested and can can past a bit of academic jargon the Katz article available in this pdf does an excellent job of explaining the trade-offs inherent in competing electoral systems. As it is written from a neutral point of view, it also documents the perceived advantages of FPTP.

Isn't this the delightful fellow who left the Conservative Party because they wouldn't agree to fag the country to the EU....just like Louis Theoroux had too for Nick Clegg at Westminster (Private) School for boys.

Edward, isn't the United Kingdom such a dusty of tattle of country. As part of a Charlemagne resurrection think of what that resurrection could be like......

But as the third largest party, the LibDems would always be the power broker in any election, assuming people continued to vote as they do now.

Respect will never hold the balence of power. Just about any form of PR looks as if it gives power to the LibDems permanently.

That is, of course, assuming voting patterns don't change, which is a big if.

@Bangorstu: If someone can give me single member constituencies without party lists, then I'm agnostic about change.

@Bangorstu

The sentence above is counter-intuitive!

How can you have a party list if you only have one candidate to choose from?

Please explain to me what mystical property single member representation exhibits that allows it, alone, to retain the fabled constituency link?

Before you answer that you might also like to deliberate upon the role of MPs - are they glorified social workers with a bit of clout or our political representatives - if they're the latter (and I think they are) isn't the link established on the ballot paper the only one we should be considering here and if it is, surely multi-member representation (say 3, 4 or 5 MPs) enables a hugely increased percentage of voters to enjoy that very same ideological link, precisely because they placed a winning candidate either 1,2 or 3 on their ballot paper.

Now that's what I call a proper constituency link!

The Tories' ideological commitment to a system that shafts them is both bizarre and hilarious

It's called being principled....

@Bangorstu

If someone can give me single member constituencies without party lists, then I'm agnostic about change.

There are plenty, including STV and many other variations of PR including the German system where you can both vote across party lines and select candidates not on the official party list.

Padav - I explained my affection for single member cosntiuencies in my psot of 2:52... basically I'd rather have one person who knows my patch well than five who know it a little.

And with 5 representatives I could get passed from pillar to post. A Labour MP may decide not to deal with me if he perceives me to be a Tory, and vice versa.

BTW - for all that this issue is dominating the Gaurdian, doe sanyone seriously think the man/woman in the street gives a monkeys?

I can only give anecdotal evidence, however friends of mine that aren't generally interested in politics are all talking about this very thing, and from it I've sorted out a few new registrations to vote, (and before you put me in your little Guardian reader box, I live in a working class suburb of Leeds, so I'm not part of any 'metropolitan elite').

The non party state has somethng to be said for it. It is one where we actuallly have a democratic impact on decisions.
For instance if policies were voted for right now without knowledge of which party was behind said policies the Greens would be winning.

electoral reform is long overdue. The system as it stands is corrupt and a relic of the horse and carriage era.

The media have even decided which ideas we may consider in a celebrity quiz show. It is so disgusting and shabby as it stands.

David Cameron has to come round on electoral reform

Really? I dont think so. There is absolutely no danger of anything changing under the present arangement and any supposition to the contrary is wishful thinking.
The voting system is so deeply in a rut it is deeper than the deepest deepsea trench. Change wont come from Parliament or the news and show media because they are part of the problem.

Getoffmycloud - the Additional Member System is what I think we have here in Wales..

I could live with that. However, it does create a class of MPs with no specific constituency to represent and they therefore be perceived as having less to do by the public. That could cause problems.

The middle class has failed our country extremely badly. It is the middle class which opposes electoral reform.

@Bangorstu: That is, of course, assuming voting patterns don't change, which is a big if.

You said it @Bangorstu, not me!

The vast majority of readers make the fatal mistake of grafting pre-reform voting behaviour and sentiment on to a post-reform landscape - it won't work out like that!

Over time, perhaps two complete parliamentary cycles, voters will get used to STV and change their behaviour accordingly. STV will probably act as the catalyst to reshape the entire political environment. The Labour Party could well break up and the Conservatives too, with factions from both wings merging with other elements of the current political firmament - UKIP with Europhobic Right Wing Tories, Labour's Centrist Social Democrats with the LibDems?

One thing is for sure, STV transfers power to the only person that matters in any election - The Voter!!!

But would splitting the British political establishment into around half a dozen parites lead to either better or more stable government?

Can you imagine how hard it would be for the elite to get what they want if the UK had PR? It is a lot easier to "persuade" one party to get what one wants rather than a coalition. It costs a lot more to buy influence these days as it is you know!

The main reason why the Tories oppose PR and Labour failed to hold a referendum in Blair's first term and even now are only lukewarm at best is because both parties know that they would never again achieve majority government but at best have to form a coalition with others.

For the electorate PR would deliver real representation for the first time in a long time and we would get a government whose combined votes were a majority of the votes cast.

Ever since the expenses scandal erupted reform of the voting system has been the single bigest question that needs to be addressed. The media have singularly failed to tackle this subject, controlled as they mostly are by powerful vested interests who effectively exercise control of both Labour and Tory parties and governments.

Because the LibDems have been sidelined for so long the dark forces that lurk just below the surface of our constitutional monarchy have given them little attention but suddenly all hell is breaking loose because the sum of all fears may come to pass.

WE MIGHT ACTUALLY VOTE LIB DEM AND screw the Tories and Labour