For most of the 19th century, and for several decades in the middle of the 20th, British politics was a two-horse race. Those times are over.
In those far off Gilbertian days when nature contrived that every voter was either a little Liberal or a little Conservative, or in the more recent but now also increasingly distant postwar days when every voter was either Labour or Conservative, the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system of election caused few serious injustices. With only two main parties to choose from, and with most loyalties seemingly immutable, a swing in the national mood was easily ? and reasonably fairly ? replicated on the opposing benches of the House of Commons. For most of the 19th century, and for several decades in the middle of the 20th, British politics was a two-horse race. If the Tories were up, Labour was down. If Labour soared, the Tories sank.
Those times are over. Those circumstances no longer exist. The old Britain has fragmented and its politics have fragmented with it. Voting is more shaped by things like education, gender, age, ethnicity and cultural identity, and less by class and locality alone. People move about more than in the past, not just within the country but between countries. Perhaps politics also matters less and is reflected in shallower loyalties. Whatever the reasons, however, politics is no longer the old two-horse race. Ever since at least the 1974 general elections, there have always been three large parties in British elections. In Scotland and Wales there have been four, and in Northern Ireland often five. In the last two decades, further parties have loomed at the margins. Yet FPTP remains unreformed, although discarded in devolved, mayoral, European and some local government electoral contests.
Two facts sum up what has now come to pass under the existing electoral system. The first is that the party affiliation of MPs no longer reflects the party choices of the electorate taken as a whole. The second is that fewer and fewer MPs win their seats with majority support in their own constituencies. Back in 1955, Labour and the Tories had a formidable 96% of the votes and 99% of the MPs. At the same time 94% of MPs were elected by majorities of those who voted. But in 2010, Labour and the Tories together got only 65% of the votes, yet still had 87% of the MPs. Meanwhile only 32% of the current House of Commons were elected by 50% or more of those who voted, a record low.
As a result, more voters than ever are now disfranchised by FPTP. Whether this widening gap between electors and elected alone explains the decline in the reputation of modern politics is doubtful. But it correlates with it in ways which should make all democrats extremely uneasy. The abuse of expenses proliferated in a parliament which was growing increasingly unrepresentative of the voters, as well as in one which was increasingly unresponsive to them. That is why changing the electoral system and changing the expenses system are connected progressive reforms. They are both part of an urgent and uncompleted need for a more transparent and accountable politics which voters can better trust to represent them fairly.
The alternative vote (AV) system ? in which voters place candidates in order of preference and in which the winner must obtain a majority of the votes cast ? is certainly not the fairest electoral system devised. But it is fairer than the one we have got, and it is rooted in the constituency link. By requiring winners to secure a constituency majority it compels all candidates to engage with all voters. It also thus binds MPs more closely to their constituents. It largely does away with any need for tactical voting. It thus also diminishes the attraction to candidates of negative campaigning. As a result this makes it difficult for extremist parties to prosper. The defenders of the existing system defend a system that is unfair and that has failed. If you want politics to be more representative, more trustworthy and to work better, then support AV in the 5 May referendum.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/04/leader-alternative-vote
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Omar al-Bashir Gloria Arroyo Joe Biden Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud
No comments:
Post a Comment