Alan Billings: Why I'd still vote for our electoral system

Until the post-election deals were done, none of us knew what the new Government would commit itself to doing. The election disenfranchised everyone! So is this an argument for changing the voting system? Or is it an argument for leaving well alone, given that this outcome is rare for the first past the post system (FPTP) but would become the norm under proportional representation (PR)?

All voting systems have strengths and weaknesses and attempts to cure one anomaly only give rise to another. We go with the system that, on balance, gives us those things that are most important for a healthy democracy and a workable parliament. What would they be? Let me give my personal response.

First, I would want every Member of Parliament to have a direct relationship with a constituency and be the single voice for it. I would want to know who my MP was and to know that their advocacy would not be undermined by someone else elected for the same area but pursuing a different line. I would want to see the MP at local events, getting to know the area intimately. This would mean constituencies that were not so big that MPs would always struggle to know them. PR means that several members would represent larger constituencies, inevitably becoming more remote. How many can name their Euro MPs?

My second requirement would be that we knew what we would get if we elected one party rather than another. This is important because it is one way we hold MPs to account. But under PR, with coalitions as the norm, on what basis would we hold governments to account? In this Parliament, do we test the Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs against their respective and different manifestoes – which people voted for – or the joint manifesto they subsequently produced, which no one voted for? And how do we hold a coalition to account anyway when a coalition will not be standing at the next election?

I can see why some students in Sheffield Hallam (Nick Clegg's constituency) who voted Liberal Democrat because they felt strongly about student fees and an amnesty for illegal immigrants, now feel betrayed. Perhaps it is a democratic argument to say that PR betrays everybody equally.

The present system of voting does not guarantee single party

government, but it does make it more likely. For the duration of a parliament, we have a coherent set of policies that the government

seeks to implement.

We also have some confidence that a single party would be able to act quickly and decisively should some unforeseen situation arise. The banking crisis that the Labour government dealt with is one example. But what would have happened if the present cobbled-together coalition had been in charge? How many days or weeks would have gone by before the approach advocated by Vince Cable – nationalise the banks, fiscal stimulus – or that advocated by George Osborne – don't nationalise, no fiscal stimulus – would have prevailed?

The principal criticism of FPTP seems to be that it does not produce governments that a majority of electors voted for. But, under PR, this is just as true. It all depends on the deals that are done after the votes have been counted.

The principal criticism of PR is that while it may match seats to votes, it gives disproportionate power to smaller groups – which we see mirrored in the present parliament. The Liberal Democrats had a bad election and lost seats, yet wield disproportionate power. They are more powerful than the Labour Party that won more seats and more votes. Yet advocates of PR – which would entrench this sort of outcome – claim this is a fairer, more democratic system.

Most of the arguments for PR seem to assume that everyone will vote the same way under PR as under FPTP. Not so. While some people will always vote tribally, many vote tactically, and tactics change according to the voting system. But while with PR I might be able to work out how my tactical vote might help towards a particular outcome in terms of

seats, I cannot work out in advance what deal party bosses will stitch together afterwards.

No voting system is perfect, but before we throw the present one away, we should weigh its merits. It enables me to know my MP and hold him or her to account given their manifesto.

On the whole, it gives stable government. I may not agree with that government, but I know who to blame and what to do at the next election.

Canon Dr Alan Billings is a former deputy leader of Sheffield City Council.