The Westminster electoral system is deeply flawed but PR is full of risks for the progressive left, says CHRIS WILSON. Could AV be the answer?
When I taught politics for many years before I became a church minister, it was always engaging to discuss current affairs with students and, in particular, the many Victorian peculiarities of our governance system. One topic that generated debate was our First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system used for Westminster elections.
The students were wise to its unfairness and quickly recognised that, in a multi-party system, electing MPs on less than 50% of votes cast is simply unfair. They may have received more votes than any other candidate, but if more people didn’t vote for them than did, how could that be right?
Many were also concerned with proportionality. If, they would argue, 20% of the electorate voted for a third party, why shouldn’t we embrace a form of proportional representation (PR) to give that party 20% of parliamentary seats.
Why indeed? More and more political parties are now campaigning for PR. Not just the Liberal Democrats but Greens, Reform, the Communist Party and so many more. The Labour-aligned Chartist magazine is supportive, as are many others across the left.
Should the ILP now fall in line? I want to sound a note of caution and offer an alternative.
First, we should begin by considering democratic principles. When we decide on electoral processes we need to ask whether democracy is about majorities or proportionality.
If the later, then we need to be aware of the risks. PR tends to favour party lists and control, meaning power goes from the electorate to the party. With the Additional Member System used in Scotland and Wales, for example, voters may think they have wider choice but can only choose a party-approved list, not individual candidates. The free thinkers are less, not more, likely to find their way onto the ballot paper.
Secondly, extremists will be elected. The Nazis in Hitler’s Germany were elected under a PR system, and we need only look at Israel’s politics to see the consequence in the Knesset of their pure form of PR. Never forget that the election of extremists risks legitimising their views.
Thirdly, PR can break the constituency link and erode local accountability. We will have much larger constituencies, especially if we use the multi-member Single Transferable Vote (STV) system.
Fourthly, PR may fracture the Labour coalition. When Keir Hardie bolted the Labour Party together from the Labour Representation Committee, the name ‘Labour’ was deliberately retained over ‘Socialist’ as the alliance – made up of the ILP, the Fabians, trade unions and (briefly) the Social Democratic Federation – had to be broad to be successful. First Past The Post focused the minds of all involved.
PR would have the opposite effect. Purists would be tempted by a left MP or party here or there, and the coalition would unravel with many ‘socialist’ candidates and parties appearing on ballot papers to chase preferential votes. The left would fragment and the right benefit.
Shabby deals
Fifthly, it will encourage shabby parliamentary deals. Look at the wheeling and dealing in the Republic of Ireland after recent elections there. Parties short of a majority are forced to work with unpleasant competitors and forget their principles, while small parties gain disproportionate power and influence.
We have already seen the influence of far-right parties in Israel, for example, and of National Rally in France. Again and again, progress is frustrated by parties with very small minorities but far too much sway in legislative bodies.
However, none of the above means electoral reform should be rejected. The current arrangement does need to change but any new system must ensure:
- every MP is elected by more than 50% of votes cast
- there is strengthened local accountability
- the far right are marginalised
- the Labour coalition is preserved
- shabby parliamentary horse-trading is avoided.
That system it is called the Alternative Vote (AV). It is a majoritarian system where the ballot papers are the same as for FPTP, but voters rank their preferences by number rather than an ‘X’.
First preferences are counted first and if a candidate has more than 50% that person is elected. If not, the second preferences of voters who most favoured the candidate with least votes are redistributed until one candidate has more than half overall.
This is not some hypothetical reform. The system is already successfully used in Australia, in electing the President of the Republic of Ireland, and in some US states and cities. It has the advantage of being simple to understand, transparent in operation and effective in delivering clear democratic outcomes.
It also ensures preservation of another democratic principle – that each constituency should be represented by a single candidate who achieves an overall (as opposed to a simple) majority.
By comparison, PR carries many risks for progressive politics, not least empowering minority views out of all proportion to votes cast. FPTP may not defensible in an ever more multi-party context, but there is another and better way to reform our unfair voting system: the Alternative Vote.
—-
Reverend Chris Wilson is an active trade unionist, a Christian socialist, and a member of the ILP.
See also: ‘Beyond PR: Why Voting Reform Won’t Save the Left’ by Ben Staltonstall,
and ‘Why Socialists Should Support PR’ by Jacqueline Taylor.
The Electoral Reform Society provides a brief explanation and assessment of all voting systems here.
