of their placing on a closed party list.

On the other hand, democratically, it makes the electorate feel that no vote is wasted. In a seat with a 25,000 Labour majority for example, Conservative voters might stay at home at a general election, knowing their candidate has very little chance of getting in. With P.R. every single v

For several years the Liberal Democrats have been calling for proportional representation in the British parliament. As Britain’s third largest party they would have the most to gain, leaving people to ask whether first past the post is really the fairest voting system?

Proportional representation looks at the total amount of votes cast per party, rather than per candidate. For example, in the 2001 general election the Conservatives gained 31.7% of the vote, but only 25.2% of the seats in the House of Commons. If proportional representation had been in place there would have been more Conservative MPs. So why is it that the Liberal Democrats are calling for P.R. and the Conservatives aren’t?

P.R. benefits protest groups and single-issue parties. Groups like the British National Party could pick up MPs even if they came last in the actual elections. For proportional representation to work candidates would not be selected for a constituency, but for an area, similar to the European election system. Voters would feel further removed from the process and having the right candidate would have little effect. The electorate would purely be making a party vote. As a system it can be said to alienate voters from their elected representatives and means that a candidate who has done no work could be selected just because of their placing on a closed party list.

On the other hand, democratically, it makes the electorate feel that no vote is wasted. In a seat with a 25,000 Labour majority for example, Conservative voters might stay at home at a general election, knowing their candidate has very little chance of getting in. With P.R. every single vo

tes cast per party, rather than per candidate. For example, in the 2001 general election the Conservatives gained 31.7% of the vote, but only 25.2% of the seats in the House of Commons. If proportional representation had been in place there would have been more Conservative MPs. So why is it that the Liberal Democrats are calling for P.R. and the Conservatives aren’t?

P.R. benefits protest groups and single-issue parties. Groups like the British National Party could pick up MPs even if they came last in the actual elections. For proportional representation to work candidates would not be selected for a constituency, but for an area, similar to the European election system. Voters would feel further removed from the process and having the right candidate would have little effect. The electorate would purely be making a party vote. As a system it can be said to alienate voters from their elected representatives and means that a candidate who has done no work could be selected just because of their placing on a closed party list.

On the other hand, democratically, it makes the electorate feel that no vote is wasted. In a seat with a 25,000 Labour majority for example, Conservative voters might stay at home at a general election, knowing their candidate has very little chance of getting in. With P.R. every single v

P.R. and the Conservatives aren’t?

P.R. benefits protest groups and single-issue parties. Groups like the British National Party could pick up MPs even if they came last in the actual elections. For proportional representation to work candidates would not be selected for a constituency, but for an area, similar to the European election system. Voters would feel further removed from the process and having the right candidate would have little effect. The electorate would purely be making a party vote. As a system it can be said to alienate voters from their elected representatives and means that a candidate who has done no work could be selected just because of their placing on a closed party list.

On the other hand, democratically, it makes the electorate feel that no vote is wasted. In a seat with a 25,000 Labour majority for example, Conservative voters might stay at home at a general election, knowing their candidate has very little chance of getting in. With P.R. every single v

lection system. Voters would feel further removed from the process and having the right candidate would have little effect. The electorate would purely be making a party vote. As a system it can be said to alienate voters from their elected representatives and means that a candidate who has done no work could be selected just because of their placing on a closed party list.

On the other hand, democratically, it makes the electorate feel that no vote is wasted. In a seat with a 25,000 Labour majority for example, Conservative voters might stay at home at a general election, knowing their candidate has very little chance of getting in. With P.R. every single v

of their placing on a closed party list.

On the other hand, democratically, it makes the electorate feel that no vote is wasted. In a seat with a 25,000 Labour majority for example, Conservative voters might stay at home at a general election, knowing their candidate has very little chance of getting in. With P.R. every single vote would count and politics would be seen much less as a two horse race. The United Kingdom Independence Party and the Green Party both have MEPs through P.R., but no MPs through first past the post.

Different electoral systems have their benefits. It would be unwise for any party to make too sudden a move however for short term gain. The London mayoral and European elections have shown how confused the public can be with all this experimenting with new systems.

Tony Blair has introduced seven different types of P.R. since Labour came to power in 1997. If a Labour defeat seems likely at the next general election there is a very good chance that the Labour Government will push for P.R., in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Change for short-term gain is never a good strategy and serious thought needs to be given to how this would affect democracy and accountability in the long run.