Simon Reevell: We will all lose if democracy is undermined by voting reforms

IN a few months' time the British public will be asked to vote in a referendum on whether the country changes its electoral system from First Past the Post (FPTP) to Alternative Vote (AV). The referendum formed part of the deal between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on which the coalition is based.

I have joined together with colleagues from all sides of the political spectrum in supporting the independent No to AV campaign because I believe that changing the electoral system in this way would do untold damage to our democracy. I hope that as many of my constituents as possible will do the same.

Nobody denies that our political system is in need of fundamental change. Turnout at elections is at an historic low. The House of Commons has seen its ability to scrutinise and amend government legislation diminish. The Upper House is in limbo, never quite knowing if or when it will be reformed. But changing the voting system is not the same as dealing with these problems and that is where our attention should lie over the course of this Parliament.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

First Past the Post is used by around 2.4 billion people in more than 50 countries worldwide – including Canada, India and the US. It is tried and tested and simple to understand. AV, on the other hand, is used in just three countries – Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea. In Fiji, they have decided to get rid of it and in Australia, more than 60 per cent of voters have said that they wish to return to First Past the Post as soon as possible. Even here in Britain, those who have set themselves up as champions of AV have expressed frustration with the system.

It's easy to see why. AV is an inherently unjust system which deserves to be rejected by the British people. It works like this: Voters rank the candidates on offer in any given race. They are asked to place a number one next to the name of their chosen candidate and, if they wish, a number two next to the name of their second-favourite candidate, and so on, until there are no candidates remaining. The votes are then counted and if a candidate wins more than 50 per cent he or she is declared the winner. If nobody gains more than 50 per cent, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and the second preferences of their supporters redistributed. The whole process continues until someone gets over 50 per cent.

It all seems simple enough but the problems associated with such a system are plentiful. AV ends the tradition of one person one vote. Supporters of unpopular fringe candidates can have their votes counted two or three times (or more) while supporters of the main parties can have their votes counted just once. If you vote for the Green Party candidate and he or she is knocked out in round one, you are given a second chance to determine the result.

If you vote for a major party candidate and he or she tops the ballot, not only will your other preferences never see the light of day, but your chosen candidate can be overtaken on the back of third or fourth preferences of other people. This doesn't strike me as very fair.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

It cannot be right that because of the use of second preferences, the party that comes in second or third can end up winning. For example, the Labour Party used AV to elect its new leader last September.

Ed Miliband came out on top despite not winning any of the first three rounds. His brother, David, led him by a margin of 3.5 per cent in the first ballot, 1.4 per cent in the second ballot and 1.4 per cent again in the third ballot. It wasn't until the fourth ballot, when all of the remaining candidates had been eliminated, that Ed went on to win. This kind of result could be replicated across the country if AV is introduced for general elections.

AV is a politician's dream. It takes power away from the voters and gives it to party managers. It is more likely to lead to the sort of hung parliaments that can cripple countries for months on end – the sort that we were lucky to avoid last May.

I believe in what this Government is doing. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have come together in the national interest and are doing a good job sorting out the economic mess bequeathed to them by Labour.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

However, in general I think the country is best served by having a clear outcome after each election. With First Past the Post you are far more likely to see strong, accountable governments.

AV is a poor alternative to the current system in every way. It is unfair, complicated and incredibly expensive to administer.

First Past the Post guarantees strong constituency links and accountability and rightly puts pressure on politicians to make a positive case, setting out why they deserve an individual's vote, instead of just one of that person's preferences. Persuading people to turn out at elections and persuading them to trust MPs necessitates politicians who are prepared to work to win, rather than those who concentrate on what might appeal to second and third preferences.

This referendum represents an important moment in our political history. We have been talking about the merits, or otherwise, of electoral reform for a long time. It's time to let the British people have their say. I hope they make a well-informed decision and choose to keep the First Past the Post system.

Simon Reevell is Conservative MP for Dewsbury