Daniel Kawczynski MP: Elections demonstrated PR's flaws

Daniel Kawczynski, MP for Shrewsbury & Atcham, says the Conservatives should abolish Proportional Representation for GLA and EU elections.

As a founder of the All Party First Past the Post Group I have spent the last few days analysing the recent mayoral and Greater London Assembly election results, mindful of the different voting systems used.

Having voted on the 1st May you will have seen the confusion at the ballot box as voters were faced with three ballot papers, each offering a separate voting system. We saw the problems a similarly confusing system brought at the elections in Scotland last May. The recommendations made from the Gould Report made it clear that we need to be careful, especially when conducting a number of elections at the same time.

The first past the post vote for the local GLA candidate was the most straightforward, with people voting for a known, and more importantly, accountable, figure. The public, through the campaigning literature, were able to see what local candidates thought of local issues. It is significant that hard working Conservative candidates did well in this vote. Where the GLA loses much of its credibility is in the so called ‘top-up’ seats which rob us of our deserved majority on the Assembly.

By breaking the constituency link, these top-up seats, using the proportional system, lead to the election of unaccountable people who, whilst getting the same salary, benefits and political influence as other members, have no direct responsibility to any specific part, or group of people, within London. This means that the BNP Assembly Member only has to represent the views of the minority of people who voted for him, rather than having to abandon the extreme principles of his Party and speak out for a larger section of society. Another anomaly occurs when a sitting GLA member stands down. If the member was elected under the PR system he would be replaced by another of his Party, however, if he is a constituency Member then there is a need for a by-election.

The overwhelming will of the people of London was to get rid of Ken Livingstone and elect a Conservative mayor. By complicating the system with optional second preferences, this was nearly jeopardised. The fact that Brian Paddick, Sian Berry and Ken Livingstone did well on second preferences only goes to show the bias which is built into the system in favour of left wing parties, parties which, in the case of the Lib Dems and the Greens were not well supported by people’s first choice.

David Cameron is well aware of all the problems of proportional representation, which is why he ruled it out for General Elections in your speech at the Power Inquiry Conference in 2006, but I would like to see the Party now commit to abolishing PR for both the GLA and European elections. When I have spoken to my constituents, I have found that not even one in one hundred can tell me who Nina Gill is, she is the ‘local’ Labour MEP. This lack of knowledge is not just a result of political disengagement, and is not a problem unique to the West Midlands. Because the historic and familiar link between community and representative has been broken, there is little spur to engage in the process and as there is no real accountability, many MEPs make little effort to engage with those who voted for them. With a lack of engagement comes greater distance between constituent and member, this breaking the link further, causing an endless spiral of reduced accountability

By pledging to scrap PR and Alternative Voting for the London and EU elections we will be sending a clear signal of our support for FPTP as the voting system of choice to increase voter engagement, reconnect communities to their representatives and restore real accountability.

Comments

[Michael Veitch]

Brilliant piece - I couldn't agree more. PR is a disaster for so many reasons. Here in Scotland we have 3 different versions - pure PR for Europe, STV for councils and the Additional Member system for Holyrood. And they wonder why people get confused!

[Stewart Geddes]

Agree entirely

Let's scrap PR in any election in the UK. It serves no purpose other than to let the tail wag the dog and to decrease acountability.

[Steve R]

Erm, not so sure. I think there's a case that there's too many different systems, but lots of countries have PR, and it doesn't create confusion. Are the Brits too stupid to handle a simple voting system.

"Tories plan to scrap fairer voting system"... that sounds like a good plan.

I'm against PR for Westminster but can see its merits in local elections.

[John Leonard]

Much as I have sympathy with the sentiments of this article and oppose PR, one of the things I despise about Labour is their constant meddling with the nations democratic system for their own benefit.

Furthermore, changing the voting system is a minor issue in comparison with some of the other wrongs that currently exist in our democratic system.

Lets get the major issues - our relationship with the EU, stopping the insidious practice of using taxpayers money to fund political parties, stopping elected representatives control their own terms and conditions and own disciplinary matters and the West Lothian Question amongst others sorted first.

Issues with the voting system can wait.

[WitanSpeaker]

I am sorry but FPTP is one of the most significant reasons that DECREASES voter engagement. There are two fundamental weaknesses of this system:

1. It tends to create governments from a minority of the vote with overwhelming executive power and hegemony over the legislature.

2. It tends to create parties that gravitate to the so-called centre ground, too timid to speak about the most contentious issues of the day: the EU and immigration.

All this does is enable government by a remote elite that just because they win through the FPTP system believe that they have a unanimous mandate to do as they wish despite actually having a minority of the vote.

A blanked form of PR is certainly not the answer but we desperately need to create a system that vents these single issues into the national debate through elected representatives.

There are ways to do this but it involves breaking out of the narrow debate of either FPTP or PR. We need to remind ourselves of the functions of government and legislature and elect bodies to carry out these functions in the most appropriate way.

[Neil Reddin]

Critics of FPTP often cite WitanSpeaker's point 1 above, but the alternative under nearly all forms of PR (there are so many I won't say "all") is to have governments formed on the whim of an even smaller minority, as kingmakers, who will hold the balance of power.

As for FPTP causing parties to gravitate towards the centre, unfortunately for political purists among us (which is probably most of those involved in active politics), that is where most of the electorate see themselves. If PR puts minority parties in disproportionately strong positions, is that genuinely reflecting the will of the people?

[The Silent Majority]

@ Daniel Kawczynski MP

"Having voted on the 1st May you will have seen the confusion at the ballot box"

So I presume you think British people are too thick to deal with PR? Every other european country manages it.. why not the British?

"The overwhelming will of the people of London was to get rid of Ken Livingstone"

Hardly overwhelming. Ken polled more votes than ever before. it took 2nd preferences to elect Boris and he only won by 140k votes. Not exactly overwhelming when you consider there is an electorate of over 5 million.

Inact it was the apathy party that had an overwheming victory (55% didn't bother voting)

"I have found that not even one in one hundred can tell me who Nina Gill is, she is the ‘local’ Labour MEP"

I think you will find that true of most politicians. Most of the electorate can't name their elected representative regardless of the voting system.

" I would like to see the Party now commit to abolishing PR for European elections."

But when we were the only european country using FPTP the Labour Party won a disproportionate number of seats which gave the the Socialist grouping an unfair majority

"It is significant that hard working Conservative candidates did well in this vote."

Actually the Labour Party gained a GLA seat from the tories under FPTP.

I could go on!!!

Daniel Kawczynski MP, who are you to say that supporters of other parties do not deserve to be represented on elected bodies. FPTP ONLY works if you only have 2 parties. Therein lies it's fundamental flaw.

We have a multi party system whether you like it or not.

Every vote must have a value.

Most constituencies are considered safe and it simply isn't worth voting in a tory or labour stronghold.

It seems you think that every other european country has got it wrong.

I don't see the rest of the world trying to follow the FPTP system. I wonder why!

[Jason O'Mahony]

Yet another Tory bitching that he has to win a majority of voters in order to win an election! Awwww!

How is it that every other EU member state can work PR fine, but you guys have such a problem?

The Tories were not the "overwhelming will" of the people of London. When Londoners could vote using PR, without fear of a wasted voted,the Tories got 35% of the vote.

Admittedly, the New Labour penchant for having so many different electoral systems is ridiculous, but all that means is that you should use the British-designed system used in Ireland, STV, for everything.
It gives you clear constituency links, a wider choice for voters, and is fair. We'll even come over and show you how it works!

Admittedly, it does assume that voters can count. Is that the problem?

[Alex Agius.]

I agree with Daniel Kawczynski and am most definatly no fan of non FPTP elections.

However PR saved the tories in Wales and Scotland from being wiped out and an irrelevance. The current Tory fightback uder Cameron and the big poll leads we are all so happy about would not have been possible if it wasn't for PR in Wales and Scotland.

[David]

Can't be done - it's EU policy - we don't govern our own country any more.

[Fred Makepeace]

@Daniel Kawczynski MP

I think the lesson to be learnt here is that when you voice an opinion you are going to be scrutinized!

Daniel you need to have a serious rethink.

You seem rather out of touch.

[David Parker]

Some of the commentators who favour PR have claimed that this works well in other European countries. But does it? All to often it leads to flimsy coalitions and frequent changes of government. This, of course, suits the EU bureaucrats very well, since weak and divided national governments ( which may ultimately be scrapped altogether and replaced with regional governments)) are all part of the grand project.

[Dean]

Well done Daniel - the Mayoral system was Blairite gerrymandering to try and ensure a Tory never got in.

As for Euro elections - as if MEPs weren't remote enough from their constituents without being elected on a list in super regions.

FPTP has many flaws but is still best suited to forming strong representation and governments.

[The Silent Majority]

@ David Parker

You get what you vote for... it's called democracy.

Both Labour and the Conservatives are broad coaltions that do deals in smoke filled rooms.

Under PR at least the parties are honest about their dealings.

You are simply wrong to say PR brings instability. Most successful goevrnments are elected under PR

[Dale]

I find the argument that 'it works well in every other eu member state' abit misleading.

Firstly, it isn't used in every eu memberstate and second, it doesn't work well where it is used at all. Italy and Belgium are proof of that.

BTW The electoral system used to elect the European Parliament has to be a form of PR.

[William]

YES, YES!

You are absolutely right. The London voted showed very clearly that PR only obstructs the will of the people, although it didn't in this case. In addition the complexity of the forms confuses people. Further more the 'Party List' approach gives the Parties too much strength at the expense of the individual and it gives too much prominence to minor parties.

We must abolish all of these stupid 'games-playing' PR affairs and go back to FPTP for all elections.

[Dale]

"You are simply wrong to say PR brings instability. Most successful goevrnments are elected under PR"

I've got an idea:

Instead of make vague assertions, why don't you give an example.

Its very difficult to rip your argument to shreds without an example, perhaps thats why you didn't give one.

[Dave B]

Very much like to see a return to FPTP in EU elections.

[Dale]

"I don't see the rest of the world trying to follow the FPTP system. I wonder why!"

Didn't italy have a referendum on switching to a plurality system a few years ago?

Didn't it pass on a landslide?

[Frank McGarry]

Daniel is right. PR is wrong.

PR has a superficial appearance of fairness but when we see how it works in practice, in Germany, Israel or in the EU we can see that it has decisive disadvantages.

It tends to give too much power to fringe parties. It also gives too much power to the party machines - at the expense of the individual politician.

We should be voting for an individual candidate and not merely for a party label. Someone who might vote for Frank Field, for example, might not be so happy to vote for Ken Livingstone.

PR appears at first glance to be democratic - but in practice it is anti-democratic. Perhaps that is why it suits the European Union.

[Isabella Biston]

Ok this is really simple.

One Vote MUST = One Value.

Under FPTP millions of peoples votes do not count. Millions of people do not bother to vote because theyand realise their votes don't count.

I think Daniel just believs the Conservatives will have a narrow party advantage using FPTP.

You shouldn't be so tribal.

PR means everyones vote counts for something and means all views are represented.

That is Democracy. Daniel why are you sooooo afraid

[Yet Another Anon]

The UK should leave the EU and the European Court of Human Rights and European Court of Justice.

EU regulations require that elections to the European Parliament use one form of "PR" or another, so while the system used could be changed, FPTP cannot be reintroduced short of managing some kind of renegociation and I can't see the other member states and the Parliament agreeing to such a change.

I think that directly elected Mayors should be scrapped and that they should be elected by the Devolved Assembly\Council Assembly. As for Local and Devolved Government I think STV would help prevent nepotism and corruption locally in councils of all types - there are too many fiefdoms controlled by a small group especially in the safest Labour councils.

[George Hinton]

The whole point of PR is to break the connection between politician and local community.
The principle of PR is to ensure the primacy of the party over individual and is a continental trait. It has evolved over the years with the creation of a political elite who owe no duty to the electorate, treating politics as a career path, as a means of ensuring an agenda is adhered to and passed.
The EU of course loves PR, as it means that they can continue the process of creating the Soviet, safe in the knowledge that the bulk of the MEP's are on-side.

[Tony Makara]

Having lived under PR I can vouch for the fact that it usually leads to no proper government as such. Only horse-trading and patchwork administrations. I found watching PR in action that single-issue subjects were often enough to bring down a government and the very system encouraged politicians to walk away from problems rather than trying to resolve them. A prime example being Naser Khader's 'Ny Alliance' party in Denmark which was formed as a home for the disaffected with many senior politicians leaving their original party and joining, yet now, suprise, surprise, the party born out of splits is itself splitting. Typical PR politics. We don't want such disorder here.

[Isabella Biston]

Ok Can someone explain to be why a party with 36% support (around 27% of the entire elecorate) should have over 60% of the MPS and be able to govern unchecked????

The inconvenient truth here is simple. If we had PR in this country we would NOT of had 10 years of NuLabour.

We need FAIR VOTES.

Noone wants to adopt FPTP!

[Don Hoyle]

It is quite true that a minority out of a minority elects the winner in FPTP but the fact is that people vote for whomsoever they want. If that person wins, that's it. If he or she loses by one, that's also it. PR in all it's many guises and disguises alienates the electorate and, as has been said above, is beloved of the continent i.e. the EU.

I would also look at the absolute electoral ab*rtion of the 'list' system which is protecting our own, home grown traitors in the MEP department.

If FPTP meant that Labour won every election for the next hundred years (and I suppose I would also have to accede "even with a low turnout") I would not start agitating for another system because, at the end of the day, or century, we would be party to the same advantage. Better that than the smoke filled rooms of some dodgy Italian-style multi-government.

(Just for the record, I am a re-elected Conservative councillor in Milton Keynes, with election blisters to prove it. I do not want PR).

[UKIP marginal general]

Boris got LESS than 20% 1st preference votes from an electorate of approx 5.4m(that has mysteriously increased by over 315k since Dec 06).Not so great a result really.

I note the very marginal Shrewsbury seat is not that safe with UKIP+GREENS +2 INDOS scoring significantly more than Dan's majority.

riddle 1;if ,as HMG states ,half of the Polish immigrants have now gone home why is Tesco now expanding it's Polski offerings and launching Polish internet shopping?

riddle 2;why are money laundering rules regarding proof of ID relaxed when they apply to Poles opening UK bank accounds?

[Audrey Blythe]

I don't much care for that picture Daniel. You don' exactly look like a man of the people!

[Simon Mallett]

I personally think that an element of PR would really help at local council level. For most seats there should be 1 councillor elected on a first past the post system to maintain the community link. There should then be a PR list system.

This has two advantages. Firstly, parties with signficant votes council wide get some representation while they might miss out on FPTP. Secondly, the parties can put key potential council members on their list. So often excellent potential councillors are not elected because they lose in an indvidual seat on the FPTP basis. It would also give a greater opportunity for talented individuals to serve on the council. It would broaden the intake of councillors.

[Lindsay Jenkins]

PR was heavily pushed by the Fabian Society - from the late nineteenth century onwards.

The reason was simple. It enabled left wing parties to dominate elections.

That Boris won despite a second choice vote was a triumph. The system was created to keep people like Boris out – and Conservatives in general.

If in the process that key link between voter and elected representative is broken the Left does not care a bit. Power is the key. Not democracy.

So I strongly support Daniel Kawczynski’s campaign for first-past-the-post. Nothing else makes sense.

Of course the EU uses PR – the EU is socialist.

And yes to Dale @11.41. Italy had a referendum on changing from PR but it missed by a smidgeon. PR is why Italy has coalition governments– 61 since the Second World War. Ridiculous!

[Jason O'Mahony]

Some posters have asked where in Europe PR works?

Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, Portugal......

And a mixed system in Australia too.

It doesn't work well in Italy or Israel, but then, FPTP didn't work in Italy either.

The truth is, a PR system alone does not make or break political stability. Just look at John Major's last government.

[Simon Newman]

Mulling it over, I agree. I strongly dislike having to vote for a party list rather than an individual. It gives far too much power to the parties.

[DavidRHayes]

Regarding PR, I would only support it if the open list system were to be adopted.

Though I prefer FPTP, as I believe that breaking the MP-Constituency link would make MPs less accountable to the people.

The small parties are usually the ones who propose PR, as it benefits them more than most people realise. As they now hold the balance of power, they often get a disproportionate amount of influence over policy.

Finally, do we really want racist or non serious parties slowing down urgent bills? I think not.

[Andrew Lilico]

I don't think we should have elections for the European "Parliament" at all. The British parties should send members in proportion to their representation in the House of Commons. Having elections serves to suggest that the European Parliament is a proper legislator for us, a proper mechanism for holding our Executive to account, and a proper expression of our "demos", when in fact it is none of these.

On the wider issue, one of the great merits of First Past the Post is not mentioned by Daniel (and this is connected to the fact the he was talking about the European Parliament). It arises as follows. The key purpose of representative democracy, its single more valuable function, is that it allows us to cast out our rulers without putting their heads on poles. The point of democracy is to allow peaceful revolution. There is no intrinsic requirement that the new rulers carry the support of the majority of the country. What we want are rulers that represent the "largest" single faction (where largest is some appropriately weighted combination of largest geographical spread and largest number of people), where that "largest" is large enough.

First Past the Post is an excellent system for changing rulers and achieving a stable alternative, because you can achieve a working majority with only something like 40% of the vote. This allows for practical government. It is thus the very thing that PR advocates complain about - the possibility of vote-minority administrations - that is FPTP's greatest strength.

Now presumably the reason Daniel didn't mention this, FPTP's most supportive argument, is that the European Parliament is the not the legislature of an executive. So in that sense it does not matter in the same way whether any one party achieves an overall majority.

For this reason, although I favour FPTP in general, and although I oppose having any elections for the European Parliament, I find it hard to get worked up in opposing PR in this setting. Since its proper role is as a talking shop anyway, why does it matter if the talkers are chosen "proportionally"?

[Billy Trouble]

@ Andrew Lilico

You are nuts

"The key purpose of representative democracy, its single more valuable function, is that it allows us to cast out our rulers without putting their heads on poles....................... spread and largest number of people), where that "largest" is large enough."

Lord only knows why you don't think a government should command majority support in the country. You seem to think it fair that a party with minority support can hold 100% executive power.

You misunderstand democracy!

Democracy moves power from the market place to the polling station, from the wallet to the ballot.

Democracy was the really revolutionary thing. Capitalists/soacialists/communists all dislike democracy because it threatens their power.

PR gives every vote a value so politicians have to fight FOR EVERY SINGLE VOTE. Not just a few in marginal constituencies.

PR neither favours the Left or the Right that is a total lie. It favours the people.

It's the truth. Andrew do wake up and smell the coffee!!

[Andrew Lilico]

Billy Trouble@17:35

You would appear to be a Democrat. You believe in Democracy, a system by which the People rule themselves. I am not a Democrat. I am a Conservative. I believe in representative democracy, a mechanism by which we choose our rulers.

Britain has never been a Democrat country. I remain hopeful that it will never be.

[Michael Davidson]

FPTP is on a life support machine. It just needs a Prime Minister strong enough to pull the plug.

Daniel Kawczynski is talking out of his backside.

[Billy Trouble]

@ Andrew Lilico

I believe in Democracy true and representative democracy at that.

You seem to want to deny the will of the people.

You are not the peoples master you are their servant.

Why are you so afraid? what do you have to fear?

I guess you fear losing power.

Thats whats so special about democracy. It allows an old woman to enter a polling station, cast her vote and bring down a government without killing anyone.

I suspect you want power for powers sake and not because you wish to make the country better for the electorate.

Power corrupts!

[H.Hemmelig]

I actually rather like the Mayoral/GLA election system. It gives the voter the chance to more freely express their viewpoint.

For example, a Labour-leaning voter who was not enamoured with Livingstone but wanted to block Boris at all costs had the ability to use their first preference to register support for a cause they support by voting Green or BNP or whatever, and then giving their second preference to Livingstone.

The GLA list vote can be used in the same way, to support a minority party at the same time as voting for your usual Con, Lab or LD choice in the constituency ballot. I think it is a very welcome development that smaller parties such as Greens, UKIP and BNP are able to gain some representation.

[Tiffany Dangerfield]

@Daniel Kawczynski MP

Having read all the comments above I would say those on the side of PR have won the debate.

Daniel Kawczynski MP, you would appear to be behind the curve on this one.

I do hope you take notice of these comments and open your mind to the possibilities PR offers

[Joe Cookson]

I'd like everybody's vote to count, but then also strong government. The European system, I hate to say, wouldn't be too bad if the central party didn't fix the process for selecting candidates, and once elected each MEP was given a specific area within the region to represent; the place where most of his or her vote came from in the first place. Our Labour MEP could therefore have South Yorkshire, with the Tories staying in the nice areas in North Yorkshire, Humberside or Calderdale.

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

One thing that isn't commented on too much is that the particular form of PR used for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and London Talking Shop is potentially very easy vulnerable to being rigged by big parties.

In theory if a party wins a constituency seat then they don't get the equivalent seat on the list. This can occassionally produce anomalies - for instance in the 2004 election for all the claims of the PR lobby that it would mean people's votes counted, I as a Conservative in a Labour constituency was not represented at all on the Assembly because the party won no top-up seats.

But supposing a major party fielded separate slates for the constituencies and lists, with the result that wins in the former didn't cancel the latter out? If the Conservatives had tried "decoy lists the Assembly would be as follows:

8 constituency Conservatives
7 list Conservatives
6 Labour (all constituencies)
2 Lib Dems
1 Green
1 BNP

If Labour also tried the tactic:

8 constituency Conservatives
5 list Conservatives
6 constituency Labour
4 list Labour
1 Lib Dem
1 Green
0 BNP

[Philip]

Totally agree with Daniel Kawczynski, absolutely.

(It seems this thread has been infiltrated by LibDems and others who want a system with a bias towards left-wing parties)

I, too, felt that the London results were distorted by the second preference votes. I thought the point of elections was to choose the candidate one most wants. And it seems fair that the candidate who gets the most votes wins. Simple.

Am I correct that the BNP and the Greens gained seats on the GLA as they got more than a mere 5% of the vote? If so, it just shows how corrupt and unjust PR really is. Plus that parties that get a minority of the vote can get into Government and force a change of the programme of the party the majority voted for.

Totally agree with the need for connection with a constituency for accountability to voters

If we want election results that better reflect national proprtions of votes, surely the the fairest way of achieving this would be constituencies with similar numbers of voters.

[David]

I am so happy to see that YET AGAIN my MP is putting his efforts in to fighting the main issues that really matter back here in Shrewsbury....after all, I have always considered the voting system used to elect the Greater London Authority as being of critical importance to Shrewsbury!

A little out of touch with the concerns here in Shrewsbury perhaps?!

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

Philip: There's been a lot of talk about how "equal sized seats" would rebalance things, but much of the reason for the distortion isn't the actual seat size but the distribution of the vote. You could have 100 seats each with 100 voters and only two parties and if one party could get 51 votes in each then there'd be a major distortion that had nothing to do with the seat size.

David: PR is used for more than the London Assembly - it's also used to elect your regional MEPs. But since the GLA elections are the most recent PR ones it's natural to use them as the primary examples of what's wrong with the system. And with people advocating PR for other elections, including your local MP and council, it's important to stop it before it comes.

[Andy Hinton]

"This means that the BNP Assembly Member only has to represent the views of the minority of people who voted for him, rather than having to abandon the extreme principles of his Party and speak out for a larger section of society."

As a constituent of Daniel's, I couldn't say I'd noticed that this was his attitude to being a FPTP elected representative. Whenever I've written to him on specific issues, he has stuck slavishly to the Tory line.

By the way, "PR" is a quality which electoral systems can be said to have. It is not an electoral system. List systems have many of the problems Daniel and other posters describe, but others do not, and nor do they break the constituency link.

Multi-member constituencies and STV is the way to go. Churchill realised this, Conservatives today who refuse to see the ludicrous imbalance of power which FPTP creates, just because they hope one day to be on the up side of that imbalance, have no principles at all, no matter how much they bleat about "the left" being given an unfair advantage. Apparently the majority of the electorate voting for leftish parties isn't a good enough reason for a leftish balance of power to result - the Conservatives "deserve" a majority on the LA, according to Daniel, despite not getting a majority of the votes.

[Charles Tannock MEP]

I can see the logic of FPTP for Westminster where you want clear majorities and stable government but I dont agree with Daniel that its equally desirable or applicable for Euro elections. Granted in 1999 I probably wouldnt have been elected in London on a single member Constituency so some might argue I will say the following for personal interest reasons I can now after 9 years in office see the advantages of the multimember regional list for the European Parliament. Not only does it allow an elector to write to his or her MEP of party choice but also a degree of choice in finding an MEP who sits on the relevant committee with specialist knowledge of the matter in question. In the EP most legislation is highly technical and doesnt always divide on party lines but on national ie UK plc lines and in the area of supranational legislation we have to build consensus across parliament so a spead of political views are necessary to gage public opinion. I very much doubt with the reducing number of total UK MEPs even if we had our own FPTP Constituency (with 10 westminster constituencies within it) that we could ever be known personally to the million or so population this would entail. Furthermore when we were at our most unpopular the MEPs were a useful backup for local party structures in the large swathes of the country with no elected Tory representation at all.
I do not seek personal recognition in my Regional constituency and am happy to leave that glory to my Westrminster colleagues and am keen instead to get on with the job in hand. Furthermore if I did have personal recognition with London's 5 million electors I might be deluged with correspondence without the resources to cope with it which has anyway increased exponentially in the last decade as a result of the internet in which in "write to them" you plug in a postcode and all elected representives get sent the same email irrespective of whether its in our jurisdiction or not (I get housing, immigration, health etc enquiries better handled by the local councillor, MP or AM)but still have to issue a polite reply as they are all my Constituents (well there is some debate if those who aren't on the electoral register are Constituents but that another debate).
There is also the other advantage the closed list for Europe brings that in theory we all stand or fall together and cannot compete with each other once the list is decided whereas a FPTP could mean adjacent Euro PPCs could break ranks and disagree and we have enough of division over Europe as it is.
Lastly I believe that under EU law PR is mandatory for Euroelections and once adopted cannot be returned to FPTP which is permissible pnly intially until a form of PR is settled on. I agree this is wrong but we signed up to this years ago.
I doubt David Cameron will regard this Euro PR issue a prority and besides the Conservative Party is well aware that ultimately parliamentarians are all basicaly elected on a party ticket (MPs are in my view on a closed party list of one and other than in exceptional cases rarely have a large personal vote above a couple of thousand voted) so an incoming Tory government by enjoying a degree of party control of the Euro list will probably happily live with the status quo.

[Peter Davidson]

For those like the author and Michael Veitch: "Brilliant piece - I couldn't agree more. PR is a disaster for so many reasons." I have only one question.

What is the primary purpose of an election (for candidates to any institution wielding democratically accountable political power)

Is it

a) To elect officers to govern?

or

b) To facilitate the expression of political preference on the part of the electorate involved?

If exercising political power is the sole purpose for holding an election - as Michael Veitch implies; yes PR is definitely a disaster for anybody with designs on wielding absolute power - fine, have an election and skew the voting system to deliver the desired outcome. The party securing the single largest number of votes in a majority of constituencies wins absolute power and everyone else can go hang!

If however like me, you hope for overall outcomes more accurately reflecting the breadth of democratically expressed views across any given electorate, some element of proportionality is an absolute pre-requisite.

So when push comes to shove, which comes first - power or democracy?

At least be honest in your answer so voters know where they stand.