The tories don’t want change as they’d struggle to win any election, if it was “one person, one vote”.

The only time reform for a voting system should be allowed is while a governing party enjoys a massive majority such as that in 1997. That is the only fair way to do this. Clutching at Straws will get Labour no friends

Good to see the conversation in the “motherland” focus on electoral reform. There is a lot to be said for the Australian system of a lower house elected on a single member transferrable vote and an upper house with multi-member electorates (our States) with a transferrable vote (the system we know and love as Hare-Clarke). They certainly both provide the outcomes you seek in terms of providing a meaningful choice without a wasted vote.

There is another Australian quirk you could add – compulsory voting. The theoretical basis is that it delegitimises a “protest vote” of not voting – if you have to vote for someone you might as well organise yourself to provide someone worth voting for.

It is also incredibly logical that you introduce your electoral laws in a form of Act that has a manner and form constraint hat it can only ber amnded by referendum, and that therefore it should be dependent on a referendum for its initial enactment.

I would, however, counsel against the direct democracy solution of plebicites on matters other than those that create the foundations of Government – just look at the mess that is California!

While you are at it you could go the whle hog and get a fully written constitution. They work.

And of course nobody in the Party was interested in the voting system when we had 100-plus majorities. Utterly cynical and an attempt to make it look like Gordon is “doing something”.
The canter of the lemmings continues.

The cornerstone of our thinking about how to improve the voting system should be our conception of what we think democracy should be. Do we want a democracy in which different views are considered and a compromise negotiated? Do we want a democracy where the will of the majority trumps that of the minority? Do we want a democracy where people have as much control over their lives as possible? These are the sort of questions which must be addressed prior to thinking about what kind of electoral system we want at the core of our democracy. The debate about the voting system is premature, we must first debate the essence of what our democracy should be.

“Though Westminster watchers often overlook this relationship, most MPs believe that the responsibility to be a local area advocate is what keeps a system rooted in common sense.”

But I am sceptical about the strength of this link. As you know, what happens at Westminster at the moment is that MPs represent specific constituents to specific government departments or agencies with regard to specific issues. Constituents aren’t really represented in your voting because the party whip largely dictates which way you vote. Basically the constituency is only represented in the way you vote in so far as a plurality voted Labour – that is massively indirect link. If we change our democratic system, a priority should be to strengthen the link between MPs and their constituencies.

Clearly a less proportional system of election is not going to placate the public, nor the opposition parties, nor any objective sense of what a proper PR system should be.

Additional Member System or Single Transferrable Vote are the only realistic PR systems in my humble opinion. Out of those two, I’d prefer AMS because it does (to some extent) focus on the regions.

I’d highly recommend anyone interested in the subject read the Governance of Britain paper on the topic: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/voting-systems-review-1.pdf

And the same should be true for all bills.

Why should it just be that MPs want to legitimise their power, and not have the public legitimise their decisions?

The answer is clear. They want to give the illusion of power to the electorate, and in reality keep power to themselves.

It’s just rearranging the deck chairs in the house of conmen.

Nick