FAQ

The public standing of MPs and Parliament as a whole is surely at an all time low. The expenses scandal demonstrates that there needs to be the whole political system needs to be reformed, and that those who benefit from the system cannot be relied up on set their own rules. The present First Past the Post system has allowed a culture of complacency and arrogance to develop, since far too many MPs know that even a political earthquake of the kind we saw in 1945 or 1997 will not be sufficient to eject them from their safe seats.

This rotten system means that millions of people cast votes which have no influence on which candidates are elected, and hands power to a single party which does not enjoy anything like a majority of voters. It has eroded the difference between those parties, as they all compete to target a few thousand “swing” voters in the handful of seats that might change hands.

The current voting system serves to reinforce the stranglehold of the existing Westminster blocs by depriving small parties of the rightful share of representation. It is a barrier to the change we need in politics.

Our political system is at breaking point. If our democracy is to retain public confidence and restore a sense of legitimacy it is imperative that we change the system as a matter of urgency.

It is too late for Labour to bring about the change we need before the next election. But simply changing the party in government will not fix politics if the whole system by which MPs are elected stays the same. Together we can ensure 2010 is the last broken election.

A government could just introduce legislation for a change in voting system, but it could be accused of trying to change the system for partisan reasons.

However, even if the Government wanted to change the electoral system now, it would be almost impossible for it to do so before the next election.

Just as with expenses, MPs have been too long able to resist changing the rules from which many benefit so handsomely. Labour promised in its manifesto of 1997 that it would hold a referendum to allow the British people their say on changing the system. But thirteen years and nothing has changed – because the public have been denied the opportunity. This must be the last General Election held under the FPTP system which only allows the electorate to pitch out Tweedledum only to hand power to Tweedledee.

This election shouldn’t just be the same old choice between nearly identical parties - the public must be given a say on changing the system altogether.

We’ve made the argument, and the government have listened. An amendment to the Constitutional Renewal Bill has been agreed by the House of Commons.

We need to sign up as many MPs as we can, we need to generate discussion in the media and on blog sites, and we need expressions of support from leading think tanks.

But there must be a clear demand for a referendum not only from within Westminster but also from without. The public is not apathetic – people still expect and demand better from their politicians. Westminster needs to be made conscious of the desire for political change that exists across active civil society. To build a coalition for change, organisations such as the environmental and poverty lobbies, women’s and youth organisations will be critical.

We want a referendum because the decision on how MPs are elected should be taken not by those who benefit directly from the present system but by the voters. We believe that change is needed because the system that allows the present situation, in which one party forms the government when it was only supported by around one in five eligible voters at the ballot box, clearly fails the test of basic fairness. This would be true whatever the political colours of the party that benefits. This is a cross-party campaign which is about delivering a system that is fair to the electorate as a whole.

It is true that a fair voting system is not in itself a sufficient condition for honest politics – other factors such as the culture of lobbying and the power of corporate interests are also very important. However, a voting system that acts as a barrier to new forces coming into Parliament and thus challenging the carve-up between the existing Westminster parties, it will be all-too tempting for them to close ranks once again and resist calls for a better way of doing politics. Electoral reform is not a magic wand, but it would open up the House of Commons to the winds of change.   

It is not a properly democratic political culture that allows the BNP to thrive, it is the lack of one.

The growth in BNP support that was registered in the European elections needs to be seen against the backdrop of tremendous anger and disillusionment with the political establishment in Westminster. In helping to rebuild trust in democracy, a fairer voting system would help to close down the space for extreme political ideologies.

The current voting system creates deserts of political representation, and it is this sense of being neglected and taken for granted by formal politics produces fertile ground for far right extremists to pick up support. A fairer voting system, far from being the problem, is a key element of the solution in the longer term. It would give the mainstream parties an incentive to campaign in every area, and re-engage with their “core” vote. It would therefore help to produce a system where politicians had to be much more responsive to the needs of people across all communities.

Clearly defeat at a referendum would be a bitter blow for supporters of reform. But at the same time, it is difficult to imagine a more conducive climate for a ‘yes’ vote than at a time when there is widespread recognition that the political system has to be subject to fundamental change, and that it presently lacks respect and legitimacy. It is hard to see which forces will oppose reform at the proposed referendum but might otherwise be expected to share the aims of the electoral reform movement.

This is, of course, entirely possible – but it is difficult to see how they could do so without also conveying contempt for the views of the electorate as democratically expressed at the ballot box. The greater the turnout and the wider the margin of victory, the more difficult it will be for the next government to simply dismiss.

So’s Morris Dancing. But no one suggests that should form the foundation for our politics.

Our parliament is not a museum. There has always been evolution in our politics, and change is required to bring a Victorian institution up to date. This British tradition was exported wholesale to countries across the world, yet in the Commonwealth and beyond reform has been a one way street – away from First-Past-the-Post and towards more responsive, more modern systems.

This assumes the English must be the most stupid nation in Europe. The Scots, the Welsh, the Northern Irish and most Europeans use other systems without problems. The X on the ballot paper is a relic of a pre-literate, pre-industrial age. We’ve moved on, so why hasn’t voting?

This ability is seriously overstated.
Time and again we suffer governments elected on a small minority of the vote that are wholly resistant to mainstream public opinion. You can kick the bastards out when politics is actually competitive.
We want more power for voters, not less – and you can ask voters in the majority of safe seats for a reference on this.

Politicians like to talk a great deal about the constituency link. And a lot of them seem to enjoy the link a lot more than voters.
Many MPs currently have a pretty dodgy connection to their voters, when most preferred other candidates. Not one can claim to speak for the majority of their electorate if you look at results at the last election.
You strengthen this link by giving people the people they voted for. There are plenty of alternative systems that retain a link. We don’t seek to disconnect politicians from the people. We want a politics that forces complacent, aloof MPs to take heed of the interests of their constituents because their jobs depend on it.