David Lipsey, chair of Make Votes Count, made a speech today in the House of Lords.
As they say, read it all.
But here’s an interesting bit (emphasis mine).
…[On the Today programme the Lord Chancellor] put forward three arguments with which I want briefly to take issue. First, he said that change would mean coalition government. Secondly, he said, it would encourage extremist parties. And thirdly, he said, there was no groundswell of opinion for change.
My Lords, at the heart of the first two charges lies a crude error. My noble friend was making the schoolboy howler of confusing electoral reform with proportional representation.
There are of course some electoral reformers who support PR, and good luck to them. But I am emphatically not one…
I always refer to electoral reform as “PR” on this blog, and of course that is lazy and incorrect of me.
I agree with Make Votes Count here:
Our goal is to reform the House of Commons with a voting system that balances the principles of:
- Broad proportionality
- Stable government
- Extending voter choice
- Maintaining a constituency link.
PR only covers the first of those requirements. But all four of them could be met by a system such as AV+ or STV (the latter being my personal preference because it already exists and is proven to work).
So then it comes to asking myself what shall I call it? “PR” is inaccurate. “A voting system that is broadly proportional, encourages stable government, extends voter choice and maintains a constituency link” is too long.
The Independent have their “Campaign for Real Democracy,” but I don’t like that because it’s almost a New Labour-esque use of a fluffy buzzword. “My democracy is better than yours, so neh!”
I think I’ll just say that I want my vote to count.
Comments closed