How can they not change the voting system?

Labour will get five times as many MPs as the LibDems with only a slightly higher share of the votes. Yet the Conservatives still don't think a reform is necessary.

To the people that insist on not listening on the urgent necessity of political reform:

How can you justify the fact that, in Britain, a party getting 23 per cent of the vote get 57 seats while a party with a percentage of 29 take home 258 seats? How is that fair?

Can this system be defined by anything else other than political manipulation?

Labour obtained a few more votes than the LibDems, but in the Commons they'll get FIVE times as many seats. Surely even the most conservative of Conservatives will clock that it can't be right, or fair, or rational, let alone an encouragement to participate and vote?

Plus, it's not as if under the current first-past-the-post system stable majorities were guaranteed. Quite the opposite, as we've learnt over the past 48 hours.

So you may as well make votes count with a more proportional system while perhaps encouraging stability by other means (i.e. a 5% threshold to weed out smaller parties, like in Germany or New Zealand), or a majority prize for the biggest party to help governability and minimise messy horse trading (like in France).

There is also another aspect.

Over a third of the electorate (35%) did not pick either Labour or the Conservatives. You read that. Over TEN MILLION PEOPLE voted from a party that wasn't the big two. Yet the big two will together grab 564 out of 650 seats. Ten million voters will be represented in the Commons by the leftovers - a mere 13% of all MPs.

Lots of people will obviously see that their vote was wasted on Thursday. Another election like this and we'll be lucky to scramble together a 50% turnout.

So for David Cameron (who - remember- campaigned asking for "change") to stubbornly insist on keeping such a shabby status quo is just a massive pisstake.

Reports say that he's offered the LibDems an "all party committee of inquiry on political and electoral reform". Pathetic.

Because that's exactly what Tony Blair did when first voted in. He set-up an "Independent Commission on Electoral Reform" (which anyway came up with the obvious opinion that the system needs changing) and successfully brushed aside the issue for another decade.

So if Nick Clegg commits political suicide by settling for Cameron's offer, the question to the Lib Dems will be: is that what you were all about?

13 years too late

Yesterday's farce in the Commons highlighted one thing alone: electoral reform is one of Labour's biggest failures.

In theory, the news that Parliament finally agreed to back a referendum on changing the voting system is something to welcome with open arms.

In theory, again, voters will be asked whether they'd rather keep the current First Past the Post system, or the so-called AV (Alternative Vote).

The choice is expected to be between more of the current winner-takes-all (meaning Labour or Tory winning by a landslide for periods of ten to twenty years), or something a little (though only a touch) more reflective of the popular vote.

As it is, millions of voters are literally wasting their time. The last two general elections were textbook in the way they highlighted the enormous disproportion between popular vote and allocated seats. In 2005, Labour received only 35% of the popular vote but were handed 55% of the seats. 22% of the electorate cast a ballot for the LibDems but all they got in the Commons was 9.6% of the seats.

In practice, however, the debate may prove futile. As it comes in the dying stage of this Parliament, the whole motion was tabled way too late. Also, it's yet to go through the Lords. A referendum wouldn't be held before October 2011, and the Tories already said that, if they win in May, a popular vote on the subject will be given the elbow.

Yesterday's speech by Jack Straw in the Commons was actually infuriating. As he called the referendum "a fundamental plank of our democracy", he said that "the alternative vote takes on the considerable strengths of our system and I suggest, builds on it. We propose a referendum because we believe it is not for us to decide, but it is important the people should have that choice". What a cheek.

So much do Straw and his party believe in it that they waited thirteen years to propose a referendum on the subject. Thirteen years. Reneging on promises, playing dumb and procrastinating, saying no but and maybe, dragging their heels, kicking and screaming. Thirteen bloody years, squandering massive majorities, to stage this belated, half arsed attempt at wooing the LibDems before the curtains are drawn.

Yesterday a Tory MP was right when he said that Straw is the same person who "has so successfully and personally obstructed [electoral reform] for over a decade".

Electoral reform remains one of the biggest failures of Labour's time in office.

More on the subject on Make My Vote Count.

Electoral reform: more urgent now than ever

Forget the hot air of pre-election proclaims: there cannot be a serious change of direction under the rotten, outdated form of bicephalus communism that is this voting system.

While the recession of the late 70s may have -at least partly- been attributed to the allegedly decaying social democratic consensus or to the striking unions, the current mega-crisis is purely the product of capitalism at its greediest.

Like we noted last year, if you consider lower income tax at the top, weak trade unions, the explosion of casual work, the availability of cheap foreign labour, City de-regulation, tax avoidance and excessive pay at the top, this recession kicked in after two consecutive decades of the most solidly business-friendly and worker-unfriendly economic set-up since the 19th century.

Even so, as Geoffrey Wheatcroft argues in today's Guardian, the shift to the right seems unstoppable. He adds:

"The latest survey from the National Centre for Social Research showed that, for one example among many, the proportion of British people who thought that homosexual relations were wrong had fallen to 36% from 62% in 1983. And yet those who supported redistribution from rich to poor had also fallen, from 51% in 1994 to 38%, and for the first time only a minority even of Labour voters believed in redistribution".

The problem, however, remains structural. Who is a victim of this recession supposed to turn to? The same party who presided over the City's binge, relaxed-about-the-filthy-rich and we're-all-freelancers-now? Or maybe the Etonians who would do exactly the same except without introducing each policy with "We understand your concerns but..."? Where exactly is the way out on offer?

"Oh", I hear you say, "but you don't have to vote Labour or Tory". Well, not quite. The country's electoral system leaves you with very little choice. With the exception of a handful of seats (i.e. Brighton Pavillion and certain LibDem candidates somewhere) -nowhere near enough to make a difference- parties questioning the general direction as embraced since 1979 don't stand a chance and never will.

****
Also: listen to Turkeys voting for Christmas, or read this summary on BBC News Online.

Safe seats and corruption: a link

A blogger compared the MPs involvement in the expenses scandal with how safe their seat is. The correlation is striking.

We always thought that the First Past the Post voting system is a recipe for political and parliamentary contempt. If yours is a safe seat, you could be the biggest donkey or automata in Westminster. As long as you stay disciplined, go along with what your master told you and you don't walk around hitting old people with a wet plimsoll, don't worry: you have zero chances of losing the elections. It becomes, in fact, your personal fiefdom. You'll represent your constituency until retirement - or beyond.

That may be one of the reasons, just by chance, to explain the correlation between the latest MPs expenses scandal and safe seats. If you look at the dozens of MPs (of all colours) exposed by the Telegraph, the safer their seat, the dodgier the beahviour.

This is what blogger Mark Reckons found out. "Has our electoral system contributed to the MPs expenses scandal?", he wrote. And, to his credit, he's backed his findings with some meticulous figures. Mark analysed the majority in each of the constituencies of the 74 MPs involved in the scandal so far and he discovered that "there is a clear increase in the likelihood of an MP being implicated in the expenses scandal the safer their seat". As the seats get safer, there is in fact "a fairly steady progression".

So David Cameron and Gordon Brown can apologise for all they like. The only thing that is going to represent a clean slate at Westminster is a radical voting reform.

Against 'First Past the Post'

The need for electoral reform in Britain has never been more pressing.

Last week's essay by Neal Lawson and John Harris in the New Statesman called for a new political framework to go beyond the tired old pick between Labour and Conservative. Even with a devastating financial crisis, they write, "the [big parties' ] underlying analyses are depressingly similar".

After lying dormant for a few years, the debate over electoral reform has been given a new lease of life. The British political system is currently at its most stagnant. Voters are the equivalent of a shopper looking for loo rolls and facing the choice between two brands both uncomfortably scraping your arse like the coarsest of sand paper. There's no alternative, wherever you go, just the same two brands...In a market society, that wouldn't work, would it? You'd be pretty pissed off: "Where are my consumer rights? Where's my free-market society? Where's my choice?"

Come the elections, Britons are given a limited (and distorted) choice of two very similar parties only. Just two. Like some sort of bicephalus communism. You would not select something because you like it, you approve of it, you agree with it. No. You have to go for the least-worst option, like when, in 2005, senior Labour politicians were urging disaffected Labour voters to stick to their party "because otherwise you'll get Michael Howard in". Incidentally, the Tory leader himself complained to the Guardian that people were struggling to detect any real difference in the two parties. "Blair has stolen our clothes", he said, adding that the PM's talent was to "look and sound like a Tory".

Britain is the country where a party with less than thirty per cent of the popular vote can dominate the Parliament with a blanket majority. It happened with the Tories in the 80s and it's been an even more obvious feature under Labour.

For 12 years - that's twelve- Labour MPs, voters, activists and commentators had a massive opportunity to revitalise the British level of democratic participation and press on their own party bosses for electoral reform. But with some sporadic exceptions, little was said and done, and when it was, it was arrogantly scoffed at.

Yes, Tony Blair and his claque would always mouth off empty words about the need to combat apathy and encourage participation. Yet they never intended to make the system more open to popular involvement. To make matters worse, unlike a generation ago, people have now seen Knackered Labour in action for three consecutive terms and with record majorities. Most still remember what the Tories were like in the 80s and 90s. With them being the alternative, it's no wonder a growing number of voters feel disenchanted.

Of course the electoral system is not the only identifiable reason for the country's alarming levels of apathy - epitomised by Bovvered winning the Word of the Year Award in 2006. And yet it doesn’t take much to grasp that if there's a perfect framework designed to dampen down desire to participate, then that's the First Past the Post. You can be as pissed off with the government as you want, or the furthest away possible from the opposition. Tough. In most constituencies, your vote will remain irrelevant.

To define a nation's apathy, no better gauge is there than election turnout figures. The 2001 general elections registered the lowest turnout in history, tallying a miserable 59.4%. In 2005 there was a slight improvement, 61.36%, still very little if you consider the introduction of easier postal voting rules and -particularly - the wave of emotions generated by the Iraq war. Just to give you an idea, the comparatively successful 71.5% turnout recorded at the 1997 elections was already the lowest since World War II.

It's even bleaker when you look at the figures concerning the 18-30 generation: three out of five young people now don’t even bother to head for the polling station. Analysts often cite the fact that more people voted for the final eviction from the Big Brother house than they did at the 2005 elections as the most telling piece of evidence that apathy has now reached the bleakest levels. Although not entirely accurate (no system is there to prevent the same people from casting their Big Brother or Pop Idol vote more than once), any conversation with young Britons of any gender, race or class would be a revelation of staggering disenchantment.

The whole Iraq war controversy is the perfect example of how to deal a lethal blow to people's involvement in the political process. On Saturday 15 February 2003, almost two million people joined what was to be the UK’s biggest ever demonstration. For a country without a tradition of mass protest in the style of France, Germany or Italy, the figures were an even more staggering reminder of the Britons’ mood on the subject. People of all ages and political creed, including those you’d have never imagined could become passionate over current affairs, were suddenly actively raising their voice against the war. Their involvement offered a glimpse of hope against all the talks of apathy and the generation-who-couldn’t-be-bothered.

However, when the Commons voted on the issue in March 2003, the dichotomy between Westminster and the rest of the country was exposed outright. Blair won by a massive majority of 179. The Lib Dems were left as the only group in the parliament to reflect the opinion of the majority, but their unrepresentative numbers made their opposition irrelevant. The dice had been thrown: Britain was sending forces into action without a UN mandate and those who had truly believed that demonstrating en masse on a cold day could make a difference were left to think again.

A system more biased towards a more proportional representation (the options to look at are many) could seriously revitalise the political debate and offer fresh ideas. Britain's need for some political defibrillation paddles has never been more urgent.

Click here to find out more about Make My Vote Count, the campaign for a more representative parliament.