The Dangerous Deathbed Conversion
The Great Electoral Reform Debate: 'The World's Leading Authority on Referendums,' Dr Matt Qvortrup, writes a provocative piece against voting reform
Not since St. Paul's famous journey to Damascus almost 2000 years ago have we seen a more spectacular conversion. Surely enough the Lord himself did not – as far as I am informed - appear before Gordon Brown. Nor was the Prime Minister blinded by his sudden belief in the virtues of electoral reform. But his announcement on Tuesday the 2nd of February had all the hall-marks of a missionary zealot propagating the Gospel.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with enthusiasm per se. The problem is the aim and the ill-informed evidence in support of this latest fad.
According to Mr Brown, the aim of electoral reform is to re-instill a new trust in the political system. And to make it fairer. Alas none of those two things are likely to be achieved by this proposed reform of the electoral system.
As a study published by the prominent political scientist Pippa Norris makes clear in an article in the scholarly journal Political Studies, the First-Past-the-Post system does result in a higher level of trust than do the other systems. A change to a different electoral system will not result in greater confidence in politicians – quite the contrary, in fact.
To discard the current system, would transport us from the existing political frying pan and into the infinitely hotter fire of constitutional uncertainty. And that, to put it mildly, is the last thing we need in these troubled economic and political times.
To be sure, a credible case can be made for Proportional Representation. It is a concern that a government, like the current one, can enact far-reaching an irreversible legislation without commanding a majority of the people, let alone those who bother to vote.
But the proposed Alternative Vote-system, which is known from Australia and mayoral elections in London (and other cities with an elected mayor in England) is not the solution. Indeed, it too has the drawback that it often allow minority parties to win. The Australian Labor Party won the elections in both 1998 and 2001. But they did not win a majority of seats due to the AV electoral system.
Gordon Brown, famously, is a student of the history of the Labour Party. He perhaps ought to (re)read the arguments against electoral reform put forward by the late Harold Laski (then the Chairman of the Labour Party).
When people, including Conservative politicians, toyed with the idea of introducing PR in the late 1940s Harold Laski rejected the idea on the grounds that, "PR has a centrifugal effect which encourages looseness of discipline, excessive compromise; the politics, if I may so phrase it, of maneuvers rather than policy". This assessment has not ceased to be valid.
At a time of distrust in the political class, when people are calling for direction, leadership and courage there are clearly more important things than changing the electoral system. So, Prime Minister, forget your conversion - and forget about electoral reform.
Dr. M.Qvortrup DPhil (Oxon)
Ed: Thank you to Dr Qvortrup for kicking off this debate with such eloquence. ResPublica will publish a piece in response next week.