My first thought when I heard that Huw Irranca-Davies MP had suddenly come out in favour of electoral reform was that it must be for selfish reasons and he’s getting a bit scared for his seat. Then I checked the figures and actually, he’s pretty safe.
Bollocks. That means I’m actually going to have to address the issue instead of just attacking him for playing party politics. I wish I hadn’t said I’d write this now.
So, to start with, I won’t be attacking Mr Irranca-Davies for his call. I am surprised that I couldn’t find much that he’s said on the issue before, but I admit that some people can just simply change their mind and that he may have decided that now is the right time for reform. Although while it may not help him, reform would surely help many within his own party who are worrying about other parties eating away at their majorities.
But, as is usual for a Labour MP trying to foray into the world of electoral reform, he doesn’t actually manage to hit the nail quite on the head.
Mr Irranca-Davies proposes the Alternative Vote electoral system. A system that essentially means that if no-one wins during the first round of an election, the losers votes are redistributed (as voters have an opportunity to rank candidates in order of preference) so that their second preference votes are counted and added to the votes of the relevant candidates.
Think of it as similar to the French style of run off elections, where the losers supporters are unable to vote for their candidate in the second round so vote for one of the top two. AV achieves this in one ballot.
Mr Irranca-Davies is right in some of his assertions about the benefits of this system. It does allow those who may support one party to give support to someone else they may think is a good candidates for another party should their preferred choice fail. It also means that whoever wins has, at least in theory, the support of at least 50% of their constituents (or at least the ones that bothered to vote). This is at least better for democracy than having members who represent only 35% of their electorates at times.
But the problem with AV, is that it is in no way any more proportional than First Past the Post. If anything, it would exacerbate the two party system by creating a view that it is just a two horse race between the top two parties. It would give no better representation to minor parties, such as the Greens, who would always still end up at the bottom of the results.
The Single Transferable Vote, as espoused by the Liberal Democrats for many years, would not just give a more proportional result, but maintain that vital democratic link between a representative and their area.
I welcome any MP coming forward in favour of electoral reform. But any new system has to have proportionality at its heart. Changing to another system that disadvantaged some parties and maintains the status quo, as well as making it difficult for minority candidates to come forward, will still leave the public as disenfranchised as they are now.
Electoral reform is not about courting the public in the wake of the expenses scandal, it’s about improving democracy in this country on a long term basis.
Related posts:
