Which do we want - “First Past the Post” or Democracy?

If you do not know what I am talking about, let me enlighten you. If all goes to plan, on May the 5^th. this year voters in the UK are going to be asked to vote in a referendum on which voting system to use in Westminster Parliamentary elections.

The choice will be either to retain the present “First Past the Post” system, or adopt a new “Alternative Vote” system.

Many people will ask, why should the system be changed? In my opinion it needs to be changed because the present system is no longer fit for purpose.

First Past the Post, was democratic when it was invented, when very few people had a vote, and the choice was between the representatives of only 2 political parties. Even after the 1831 Reform Act, (when the voting franchise was widened out), it was still fit for purpose. At that time there was only a choice was still between the candidates representing 2 political parties, Whigs and Tories. By the end of the 19^th Century these 2 Parties had become the Liberal and the Conservative Parties. At the beginning of the 20^th century a new party emerged – the Labour Party. From the 1920s it became apparent that 3 Parties and “First Past the Post”, were neither compatible nor democratic.

Effectively First Past the Post disenfranchises substantial numbers of the electorate. Take a look at the figures for the last few elections.

2010 General Election: Conservative got 36.1% of the vote and won 306 seats; Labour 29% of the votes and 258 seats; the LibDems got 23% of the votes and 57 seats.

2005 General Election: Labour got 32.5% of the vote and won 355 seats; Conservatives got 32.4% of the votes and 198 seats; LibDems 22% of votes and 62 seats.

2001 General Election: Labour 40.7% of votes and 413 seats; Conservatives 31.7% of votes and 166 seats; LibDems 18.3% of votes and 52 seats.

1997 General Election: Labour 43.2% votes and 418 seats; Conservative 30.7% votes and 165 seats; LibDems 16.8% votes and 46 seats.

1992 General Election: Conservative 41.9% votes and 336 seats; Labour 34.4% of votes and 271 seats; LibDem 17.8% of votes and 20 seats.

1987 General Election: Conservative 42.2% of votes 376 seats; Labour 30.8% of votes 229 seats: LibDems 22.6% of votes 22 seats.

1983 General Election: Conservative 42.4% of votes 397 seats; Labour 27.6% of votes 209 seats; LibDem 25.4% of votes 23 seats.

It does not take a mathematical genius to see that there is no correlation between the percentage of votes cast for a party and the number of seats won. The largest percentage of votes cast for the third party was in the 1983 election – 25.4% - in a democratic system one would have expected a quarter of all seats (162 of 650) to have been LibDem in fact they only got 23 seats – not democratic in my opinion, and most certainly not fair!

At this point I have not considered the uphill struggle faced by the even smaller parties, - the Green Party, United Kingdom Independence Party and many others. In fact it would be fair to say many people do not vote for a party whose policies they agree with, so much as vote to stop a party whose policies they disagree with – a case of voting for the lesser evil. This is not what is meant by the term democracy. It is a fact that when the United Kingdom Government has been involved in drawing up the constitution of other countries, (former colonies, devolution to Scotland and Wales), the prescribed electoral system has never been First Past the Post.

However the system on offer, the Alternative Vote system, is not an alternative favoured by many people. Most people wanted some form of Proportional Representation. However PR results in M.P.s who are not answerable to constituencies, whereas under AV an MP will still represent a Parliamentary Constituency, furthermore he or she will have been elected by at least 50% of all the electorate, who voted. The system is simplicity itself. The voter is asked to to rank the candidates by preference: 1. for most preferred; 2. for second choice; 3. for third choice; 4. for fourth etc. If in the first round of counting, a candidate gets over 50% of the votes cast – they will be elected. If no one has 50% first preference votes, 2^nd round counting will start, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and their second preference votes are counted. If still no candidate has passed the 50% a third round count takes place, the bottom placed remaining candidate is eliminated their 2^nd preference votes are allocated and counted. This process will continue until a candidate has 50% of the votes. Not perfect maybe, but in this age of many parties more effective and democratic than first past the post.

When people can vote without worrying about wasting their single vote, who knows what the result may be. UKIP supporters may risk voting UKIP first Conservative second preference. Labour may find it looses voters to socialist parties like Respect. No doubt some of the fringe parties who have popular messages will also unexpectedly benefit.

Finally I must tell you members of the House of Lords have attempted to sabotage the Referendum by introducing a 40% Threshold for the referendum turnout. When one considers this vote is taking place 8 months after the Electoral Rolls were compiled, and obviously some people on the roll will have died, or gone to prison it will be realised the threshold is far higher. It also insults the dead, as it effectively presumes that they are NO votes.

I URGE YOU -

PLEASE TURN OUT ON MAY THE 5TH AND VOTE

PLEASE IF YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT VOTE YES FOR AV