Out from the crowd ...and proud!

Pros and cons of proportional representation

I posted an article that I had written for the student newspaper at Warwick onto this blog a while ago. That is probably what has attracted so many dropouts to my blog. That article did not get published, I believe because I had been a little too controversial.

I submitted another article that was inspired by an article someone had written about Angela Merkel. I thought that this article was much less controversial - after all, it was only an argument against proportional representation - than the previous one but this article also wasn't published. I have, however, decided to publish it on my blog.

Reading Sam Hancock’s article, ‘In the Lair of the Leitwolf’, in February 27^th’s edition of the Boar inspired me to write an article commenting on the pros and cons of proportional representation. I remember the backroom deals mentioned in the first paragraph and how it seemed to take forever for Germany to form a government following their last election. In fact, I often use Germany as an example to explain why I do not support proportional representation and would rather that Britain stuck with first past the post.

At least as far back as 1997, moving towards a more proportional electoral system has been an issue in this country. Labour promised they would look into the possibility of adopting proportional representation in their 1997 election manifesto: ‘We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.’ The Lib Dems are keen supporters and the Conservatives are strong opponents of such a move.

I am not denying that there are some reasons why proportional representation could be a good idea. I live in one of the safest constituencies in the country. One person will never be able to even dent a majority of 19,000 votes. I do feel that my vote doesn’t actually count. I often think “why, therefore, did I spend half an hour of my time on a Thursday evening about three weeks before the start of my A-levels to vote?” when that time would have definitely been better spent revising. At least with proportional representation, every vote counts. The entire election would not be decided on the votes of a few thousand people (out of an electorate of approximately 45 million) living in a few key marginals.

An example often given by advocates of proportional representation is that, at the last election, more people in England voted Conservative than Labour but Labour have more English MP’s than the Conservatives. Situations like this would not happen under proportional representation. Advocates of first past the post say that this situation was caused by unevenly sized constituencies and can be easily solved by redrawing the boundaries.

There is no point in denying that proportional representation would mean that previously unrepresented minority parties could find themselves with a seat in Parliament. This can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing, depending on who you are talking about. I am sure that nobody would object to the presence of a Green Party MP but even the thought of the BNP getting elected to Parliament would make most people cringe. I, for one, am yet to meet anyone who has anything good to say about the BNP, yet people still vote for them. There is a real possibility of extremists getting elected to Parliament if Britain switches to proportional representation.

To me, an important and perhaps the most important fundamental principle of democracy is that the average person on the street gets to choose who should run their country. A list system of proportional representation, as used in the European elections, hands over too much control to party headquarters and away from the voters. This means that our elected representatives are no longer accountable to the electorate, of whom only a tiny percentage are members of any political party. Even though I am a grass roots member of a political party, I feel far more disenfranchised by proportional representation than I do by first past the post. The thought of there being a small committee of only a few people deciding who should be in Parliament scares me.

In my opinion, proportional representation should actually be called proportional voting as there is no representation involved. One of the best parts of the first past the post system is the link between an MP and their constituency. This link would be lost with proportional representation. The constituency link is important because it means that it is easier for the people to know who their MP is and therefore be able to contact them. Representation would be lost if the constituency link was lost.

It is not only a lack of representation that would frustrate me about a Parliament elected by proportional representation but also the ineffectiveness of any government when compared to a Parliament elected under first past the post. Constant minority governments and coalition governments would mean that any legislation that is passed will end up watered down and far more legislation would not be passed.

The last time that Britain failed to elect a majority government was in February 1974. Less than eight months later the then prime minister, Harold Wilson, went back to the country in the second general election of that year. First past the post almost always produces a government with a workable majority – in the last 100 years there have only been six times (January 1910, December 1910, 1923, 1929, 1951, February 1974) that we have failed to elect a majority government out of twenty six general elections in the same period of time. Proportional representation, however, almost always produces no overall majority. Advocates of proportional representation may say that, in 2005, 34% of the vote somehow gave us 55% of the MP’s – the lowest proportion of the vote for any single party majority government in British history – but I would rather that than a government made up of 34% of the MP’s.

Trying to forge a coalition can be a lengthy process. It requires compromise from all sides involved. Incompatible manifesto promises are ignored and in the end we do not get the government that we voted for. All this goes on behind closed doors as every MP battles for their place in the government. It is likely that under proportional representation it will be the Lib Dems who are constantly in power as they are small enough that they won’t be fighting with their opponents but large enough that they could create a majority coalition. Whoever can form this coalition with the Lib Dems will form the rest of the government, regardless of how we voted. In my opinion, this is not a democratic solution.

I fear that it might not be too long before introducing proportional representation in Parliamentary elections is brought to the top of the agenda. There have always been supporters who have been ranting about such an idea in their free time but I have heard that the chances of the next election resulting in a hung Parliament are quite high. The Lib Dems will form their coalition with whomever they choose and introduce proportional representation. No future British government will have a workable majority and the resultant weak legislation will make the people on the streets want to return to first past the post and majority governments formed on the back of 34% of the vote. First past the post is by no means perfect and is in great need of reform but it is the best system we have.

I did quite a bit of research before putting together this article so I hope it was better than the previous one (which was pure opinion).

posted by Average guy on the street @ 9:22 pm