My priority for our electoral system is that it is robust, trustworthy and provides strong connections between voters and their MP. This is vital to the survival of democracy. I believe that the present First Past the Post (FPTP), while not perfect, is the system that best achieves this and provides a clear link between elected representatives and their constituents in a way that other systems may not.
Our present FPTP system will, more often than not, ensure that elected governments have a working majority in Parliament. This in turn allows for a more decisive and stable form of government. The German Government, which uses a proportional system, saw their coalition fall apart and early elections called. I do not believe that a cycle of constant elections, and Parliaments that do not live out their full term, best serve voters interests.
Under proportional systems like those found across Europe, see constituents often waiting months for coalition governments to be formed. Time that could be better spent working for voters, instead of politicians working for themselves and their party. The most recent Dutch government took 225 days to form, in Belgium voters spent 541 days without a government. Over a year without a functioning government would cause major disruption, public services like the NHS would have to wait all that time for an approved budget. In my mind that is simply not worth the risk, delivery is crucial for trust in democracy.
Furthermore the direct constituency link would be broken under a PR or list based system. Politicians would have more power in picking and selecting representatives than voters. This is a far greater risk to public accountability, as politicians could be placed on a national list and elected even if their constituents don’t want to elect them
When the Alternative Vote (AV) referendum was held in 2011, voters rejected a proportional system. I believe the arguments made then remain strong, and I don’t think a proportional electoral system is the right way forward.
Kieran.