Courtesy of my colleague Malcolm Clark:
http://www.makemyvotecount.org.uk/blog/.
Quick, somebody send Harriet Harman a copy of her Government's review of electoral systems. For she appears either not to have read it; or to have misunderstood what she's read; or at worst to be wilfully misrepresenting what the report concluded. And given the review was done from an academic, non-judgemental viewpoint, that's a serious matter.
In answer to a well put reader's question (by Ruth Coleman) in today's Independent on "you have spoken in the past about boosting democracy. So how can you be against proportional representation?"
Harriet responded:
"We have introduced proportional representation in European elections, Scottish council elections and London Assembly elections. We'll shortly be publishing a review of how the new systems worked. But the evidence suggested is that it doesn't boost turnout and people find it complicated."
In contrast, the review itself concluded:
We do not find, on balance, any evidence to suggest that voters find one voting system easier or more confusing than another voting system.” (para 6.170)
Proportional systems were found, on international comparison, to be associated with higher voter turnout than First Past the Post and other majoritarian systems. (para 7.97)
As an addendum to that final point, it should be noted that since none of the elections included in the review were conducted under First-Past-the-Post before they changed to a form of PR, no easy comparisons of turnout can be made. However, the Scottish Local Elections in 2007 under STV did see a reasonable increase in the total number of votes cast compared with under FPTP; partly as a result of many more seats being competitive and some in rural areas being contested for virtually the first time.
Comments