Chris Huhne: Stop all this tilting at windmills

Critics of electoral reform should engage honestly with the proposed alternatives

If the British election system is superior to anyone else's, as critics of electoral reform argue, why have none of Europe's new democracies copied it? The rival systems, including Britain's, have been carefully assessed since the fall of the Berlin wall. Britain's option has been comprehensively found wanting, and no wonder.

If the British election system is superior to anyone else's, as critics of electoral reform argue, why have none of Europe's new democracies copied it? The rival systems, including Britain's, have been carefully assessed since the fall of the Berlin wall. Britain's option has been comprehensively found wanting, and no wonder.

Defenders of the British system argue that it provides clear-cut choices before the election. In proportional systems, according to Jack Straw's typical argument in The Independent last Friday, no party can gain a clear majority. The coalition of votes and representatives occurs after, not before, the election.

Such critics argue that in other systems - such as the German one - it is possible for a small party like the liberal Free Democrats to become a necessary component of any coalition, even while commanding fewer than 10 per cent of the votes. They become the "hinge" party that swings either right or left. As Mr Straw argued: "PR systems can, and often do, give disproportionate power to small minority parties".

This line of attack confuses the characteristics of some election systems - such as Israel's or Germany's - with the properties of all alternatives to first-past-the-post. It wilfully misrepresents the most commonly advocated alternatives for Britain.

Most British electoral reformers since John Stuart Mill have advocated the Irish-style single transferable vote, because it is the system that gives voters the most choice: not only over the party but also over the candidate they prefer within that party. This is the system that operated for Stormont in Northern Ireland, and does so today for the Dail in Dublin. You simply order your candidates in a four or five multi-member constituency in your order of preference.

Under Ireland's system, governments have won an overall majority on 45.7 per cent of the vote. Since independence from the UK in 1921, Ireland has had seven such majority governments. There has never been a "hinge" party capable of putting one or the other of the big parties into power.

An alternative for Britain would be the 1998 Jenkins commission proposals. These combine the Australian system of the alternative vote - which allows transfers from lowly placed candidates until one person gets more than half the votes in a constituency - with a small top-up of extra MPs to ensure greater proportionality. Using this system, a party would be able to secure an overall majority with about 44 per cent of the vote.

In either the Irish or the Jenkins case, we would probably have had many majority governments in Britain since the war. There would, though, be differences. First, majority governments would not have such crushing majorities and the balance of the opposition would not be seriously distorted. This would increase competition within the British system, and provide voters with greater choice.

Secondly, any shortfall from about 44 per cent of the vote would require the largest party to persuade another party to support its programme. Is that unreasonable? If it is, as Mr Straw implies, then he should tell us to what low point he is prepared to see the Government's share of the vote sink before he regards it as an insufficient mandate.

At present, Labour rules with a large majority on just 35 per cent of the UK vote, the lowest share for any government since 1832. In theory, it would be possible under the present system for Labour to win a majority with barely 30 per cent of the vote. Would that be fair?

A third advantage of reform is that everyone's vote would count, wherever they lived. There would be no citizens disenfranchised because they live in the half of all UK constituencies where the result can be confidently predicted before polling day.

Contrary to critics' assertions, both of the proposed alternatives to Britain's present system preserve a strong local link to the elector. Under the Jenkins proposals, most MPs would continue to be elected for a constituency. Under the Irish system, there is an incentive for MPs to serve their areas well because they compete not just against other parties, but against other candidates for their own party.

Few people in Britain argue for the Israeli, Belgian or even Greek system. Critics of electoral reform should stop tilting at windmills, and engage honestly with the proposed alternatives.

Reform can, and should, preserve the possibility of majority government on a respectable share of the vote. It can give voters more choice, ensure every voter is treated equally, and enhance incentives for local service by the MP. In short, reform can work with the best elements of the British tradition while establishing fairness in a three-party system.

The writer is a Liberal Democrat spokesman on Treasury affairs

Huhnec@parliament.uk