Are we Conservatives right to set our face against reform of the First Past the Post (FPP) voting system?
Despite FPTP being better than a proportional system or even AV, it does have one major flaw. There are too many constituencies where an MP can get elected with just less than 50% - or even 45% of the vote. Does this matter? If you accept that a parliamentary majority requires +50%, then surely a constituency MP should be elected by a majority. Democracy must by its nature be majoritarian, provided it is subject to the rule of law and minorities have genuine ‘input’ into the political process and the right of redress.
Accepting this point does not mean one has to be in favour of Proportional Representation or even the Alternative Vote. We know that PR - as has been shown by the European Parliamentary elections - destroys the constituency link and ensures that individuals depend primarily on the support of party activists to maintain a good ranking on the electoral ladder. Similarly, the Alternative Vote places an artificial construct on voter's intentions, forcing them to make second preference choices - before they actually know the result, which inevitably would disproportionately favour the Liberal Democrats as being the 'centre' party.
So, how to square the electoral circle. The answer is what is termed as ‘The Second Ballot’ (TSB) system, as used by France (for both Parliamentary & Presidential elections), the Czech Senate, Lithuania and Hungary. Austria, Finland and Slovakia use TSB for their Presidential Elections.
The beauty of TSB is both its fairness, and simplicity. Instead of having an 'Alternative Vote' and artificial second preferences, a ballot is held a week or two later in which the top two candidates slug it out for pole position. Not only does this give electors a few extra days to consider their options based on the first result, it ensures that they are not forced into making a 'saccharine' second choice (which AV would force them to do), before they know whether or not their first preference candidate will get over 50% of the vote.
It also preserves Constituency representation and usually guarantees strong Government. Of course there is a greater cost, because there are two elections - but these are not as great as might be supposed. According to an analysis by the House of Commons Library, the cost of the French TSB Parliamentary election in 2007 was approximately £2.30 per voter. In the UK, the estimated costs of the 2010 General Election was £1.75 per elector. Not a huge difference.
TSB, if introduced in England, would preserve the FTP principle, but ensure that every MP in every constituency had a majority of over 50%. Unlike AV, it does not give undue weight and influence to the second preference votes of minor parties, but could signficantly change electoral behaviour. Because voters would know there would be a strong likelihood of a second ballot, the evidence shows that there is a wider spread of voting intentions. Moreover in some instances, it encourages bigger parties to build alliances with smaller parties, in order to attract their voters in the second round. To win this battle of the referendum on AV, Conservatives should not be closed to some reform of First Past the Post. I accept it is the least worst system we currently have, but why not make it even better?
We know that the electoral reformers are very determined people. The choice is between improving FPTP or ending up with something very different. If we do not make FPTP even better we risk its critics trying again and again to replace it with something much worse. If we introduce The Second Ballot my belief is that we will protect the best of First Past The Post and guarantee faith in its continuation.