Sponsored by
Linda Riordan: Why I still vote for the benefits of first past the post
THE "first past the post" voting system has served this country well for over 100 years. Long may it continue to do so. Like all voting systems it has its faults, but it has fewer faults than the others.
Not all voting systems are equal, but first past the post is undoubtedly more equal than others. It was designed in 1885 as the best possible voting system to keep extreme parties out of Parliament.
How ironic then that a century later it is a proportional system of voting that has led to the BNP gaining two European Parliament seats. And that the Liberals are the biggest cheerleaders to abolish it and impose a form of proportional representational which may benefit them electorally but won't help the British political system.
These are turbulent times for democratic politics. The results of the European elections underline the strength of voter volatility.
This cannot be ignored or wished away. It is out there and real. We are in uncharted waters. Yes, to navigate through them requires some big reforming decisions to be made in the coming weeks and months. Is one of them to change our voting system?
No. I have lost count of people, in all parties, calling for the voting system to be reformed. Somehow, it seems, that if the voting system changes then everything will be rosy in the garden.
It not only misses the point, but is a very dangerous and short-term route to go down. Over recent weeks, I have lost count of the number of doors I have knocked on in Halifax, to engage with my constituents. I cannot remember one of them telling me they want the voting system to be reformed.
They have, though, had plenty to say about expenses, the economy, health and education. Bread and butter issues. The Government has enough on its plate at Westminster, without adding reform of the voting system to its "to do" list.
Short-term fixes don't work in politics. Since the 19th century, the "first past the post" (FPTP) system has worked. The prevailing mood of the country takes its course under this system.
For example, in 1945 a clear majority of voters wanted a Labour Government. It gave it a clear mandate to govern. Would Clement Attlee have been able to carry out such popular post war reforms if we'd had an election under PR? Not at all. He would have been too busy doing back room deals with Liberals and Tories to keep them on board.
On the flip side, in 1979 the country wanted a change of government. And, as much as I detest the policies of Thatcher, the FPTP system enabled the largest party to form a government. It is democratic, provides stable Government, a clear constituency link between MP and voter, a definite outcome, clear results and an easy to follow system.
If PR is such a popular form of voting, then why was turnout so pitifully low in the Euro elections?
Why did we end in stalemate in Scotland last year with no clear party winner?
Would the BNP have been elected under a FPTP system? No.
The pro proportional representation argument is a dangerous diversion from what the real problems are in our Parliament and society. To pretend that the expenses crisis may not have happened, as some have done, under PR, is laughable.
PR is in itself, actually quite un-democratic. Use it in Westminster elections and we would never have a majority party. Therefore, the mandate to govern would not be decided by the electorate but by grubby deals behind closed doors (at least they wouldn't be smoke filled rooms anymore thanks to the smoking ban). Is that what the PR cheerleaders would like to see happen?
My late husband liked to have a flutter on the horses now and again. If he backed a horse and it came fourth, he didn't demand a proportional form of racing. He accepted that the first horse past the post was the winner. Simple.
The same logic should apply in our voting system. In the 2005 General Election, I was elected with the most votes. When the voters of Halifax make their choice at the next General Election, I will accept that whichever party has the most votes is the winner.
We cannot rely on a proportional system that transfers votes to provide a clear winner. It is first preferences that matter, not second, third or fourth choices.
You only have to look at the chaos in some European countries with PR to see what a bad system it actually is. Now is not the time for changing voting systems; it will only provide window dressing for more fundamental challenges that lie ahead in the coming months. "First past the post" works. Long may it continue to do so in the politics of this country.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Celtic interested in Leeds United’s White
- Ball is in Leeds United’s court over contract - Snodgrass
- Sister ‘saw parents kill teenager Shafilea Ahmed for bringing dishonour on family’
- 20 degrees! At last, Yorkshire’s about to bask in sunshine
- Worker killed and trains halted on North York Moors steam railway
- Ball is in Leeds United’s court over contract - Snodgrass
- Celtic interested in Leeds United’s White
- Sister ‘saw parents kill teenager Shafilea Ahmed for bringing dishonour on family’
- Fears over faith split fuelled by free school proposals
- Luton Town 1 York City 2: York clear their heads after early blow to claim their place back in Football League
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Yorkshire
Tuesday 22 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North
Tomorrow
Sunny spells
Temperature: 11 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 10 mph
Wind direction: North east
