When Labour's 1997 manifesto pledged a referedum on the voting system used to elect the Commons, it was in the specific context of a "proportional alternative" to be established by an Indepdent Commission (though when this body reported under that chairmanship of Roy Jenkins recommending the proportional AV+ system, it was effectively sidelined). The case for a referendum was predicated on the understanding that the alternative would herald a substantial shift in the political culture of the nation: it would require widespread boundary changes; it would change the dynamic of the single member - constituency link; in reflecting the real balance of support between parties it would limit the capacity of single political parties to form an executive exlusively from within its own ranks, requiring a more consensual and co-operative style of politics; and would allow smaller parties greater access to representation. In total, changing the voting system to a proportional system would have a substantial impact on the way democracy functions, and thus it was felt that the decision should rest with voters themselves.
The Alternative Vote, whilst it might in some ways valuably augment the present FPTP voting system and require a shift in the methods of voting from the use of X's to numerical preferences, would not substantially impact upon the culture of our politics. Yes, each elected MP would require the support of a majority of those voting, and it would put an end to the fear of votes "splitting" to unintended effect. However, it would not have the kind of radical impact of a PR system. The single member consitutency link/monopoly would remain intact. There would still not be a situation where all votes counted equally. Seats would still not be distributed in proportion to votes received, so it would still be entirely possible for a party have an exclusive grip on government with a minority share of the vote. And it would not help to extend the range of parties represented at Westminster.
So why is Jack Straw still insisting that if Labour was to bring forward proposals on AV, it would still b ebound by a referenum promise made on an entirely different basis? The government didn't hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty for precisely this reason. Is it really worth the expense of a national referendum and the effort to build support for a measure which, though in some sense a step forward from FPTP, hardly offers the basis for the real reforms our political system needs? Why not include a promise to bring in AV in the next manifesto, and include provision for voters to determine whether there is still an ongoing need for a proportional element?
