I wrote to Michael Gove MP on the issue of electoral reform, and this is what he had to say in response.
Thank you very much for writing.
I would like to think that I am open minded about all proposals to make our electoral system work better. But I have to say that the direct accountability of our current system seems to me to have many advantages. Even though he is not, of course, a Conservative the arguments made by Jack Straw the Foreign Secretary in The Guardian recently seem to me to make a persuasive case for the maintenance of the current system.
Yours sincerely
Michael Gove MP
This is my response:
Dear Mr. Gove,
Thank you for your reply to my letter of the 6th May.
I am pleased to hear that you’re open minded about proposals to make the electoral system better, and am glad that you are supportive of a system which allows direct accountability.
May I venture to suggest that the current system actually inhibits accountability at a national level given that a voter in a marginal seat has much more power than a voter who lives in a safe seat?
If you are referring to Jack Straw’s article of the 12th May (available on the Guardian website), it seems that Jack Straw was writing against the use of list-based PR at Westminster. Quite right too, as it would be biased against independents.
As I mentioned in my original letter, AV+ (as proposed by Lord Jenkins) maintains a constituency link, and hence maintains accountability.
Still better than AV+ is the Single Transferable Vote which has no "list based" element at all. This would allow voters to say "I’d prefer A, wouldn’t mind B, but would prefer them both to C". This preference is at the level of individuals and not parties. In a stroke this eliminates the need for tactical voting, as people can express their true preference without a need to worry about "splitting the opposition vote". Under a current system it would be possible for an MP who has the support of only 30% of the population to have three "protest" candidates gain 70% between then and still be elected. Under STV, the voters would be able to express preferences between the "protest" candidates without harming the chances of their protest being unheard.
STV would not provide "proportionality" in terms of first choice, but it would give a government which most people can feel engaged with – it would provide a much "better fit" than the existing system. STV is used for the Australian Senate, the Republic of Ireland, and several other governments.
In short, STV is a system which keeps local accountability, can still provide strong government (it is not "proportional") and it allows voters to express preferences between candidates. It is also easy to understand for the voter; they just rank the candidates 1, 2, 3, 4 etc…
This is electoral reform where strong governments can be formed and where those governments do represent the true preferences of the people.
I would be interested to learn your views on STV, and hope that you will give the issue of electoral reform further consideration – list based PR is not the only alternative to first past the post.
I still await your views upon the second question I raised in my original letter.
Yours Sincerely,
The government has formed a sub-committee to look at these issues. The list of names does little to inspire confidence in this humble voter. I hope I’m wrong in my scepticism.
Edit: Above letter modified slightly.
All Posts
2 Comments
And after all the good stuff I’d heard about Gove an all…
I understand MPs can’t take the time to properly respond to all letters, but still, that was pretty pathetic.
His answer, if you get one, to the question of STV, will be along the lines of ‘STV is bad because it gives an exaggerated voice to the fervent, blind, anti-Tory sentiment that pervades a lot of the nation’. Of course he (his letter writer) won’t state it explicitly, but that will be the undertone. And in a way, he’s right. In a perfect world, STV would be lovely, but as with every other aspect of democracy, it’s ruined by the people
Gove even brings the whole party-politics shebang in himself, “Even though he is not, of course, a Conservative” - why should this matter? Logically, it’s irrelevant nonsense, but it is, and I imagine always will be, the way things are. I guess that means there’ll always be something to rant about, scant consolation though it might be.
Some of these MP’s have curious ideas. Here’s an exchange I had with Frank Field following a recent article in the Guardian in which Mr Field praised the French “doubtle tour” system:-
Dear Mr Field,
I am suprised that you come out in favour the French system. The weakness of the general concept was illustrated by the last presidential election where we almost ended up with a Fascist president. Those achieving first or second place for the second round do not necessarily have the greatest support in the electorate as a whole. For instance it is very probable that if there had been a preferential system (AV for the President, STV for constituencies) Jospin would have been top of the poll since on the first round the left was split by voters for numerous minor parties who would without doubt have given their 2nd preference to Jospin - they certainly would not have given it to either Chirac or Le Pen. ( A similar though less obvious situation arose in the USA because of the intervention of Ralph Nader.) Under the “double tour” system it was too late for the left-wingers when it came to the second round: Jospin had been eliminated and their choice was now between a crook and a fascist each of which had less than 20% of the first round vote: Chirac 19.83% of vote; Le Pen 16.91%. Jospin had 16.14%.
So I hope any thought of introducing that system will be rejected out of hand. However, I am very happy to see another Labour MP recognising that the present situation at Westminster is absolutely intolerable. Given the unequivocal commitment to a PR referendum in the 1997 manifesto the present attitude of some Ministers, including the PM, is quite incomprehensible in what claims to be a party dedicated to democracy (from which I have recently resigned precisely because of the cynical reneging on both the 1997 and 2001 commitments on PR). If I had not already resigned Jack Straw’s article in yesterday’s Guardian would have been the last “Straw”!
Best wishes
Joe Patterson
Dear Mr. Patterson
Thank you for your email of May 13th regarding the electoral system.
No amount of arguing is going to convince voters that redistributing the second-preference votes of losers, and giving these votes the same value as first-preference votes, will build a fairer electoral system. Voters are more likely to share Winston Churchill’s view that an electoral system allowing candidates to be elected on second-preference votes is one in which “The decision is to be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates”.
Our voting system does need to address the illegitimacy of candidates winning on a minority of votes. Only a separate second ballot, offering a run-off between the top candidates, can guarantee the combination of simplicity and legitimacy which comes from all votes being genuinely equal.
With best wishes
Frank Field MP
Dear Mr Field
The system that nearly gave us a fascist president in France! Where people record a protest vote and when the second round comes it’s too late to vote for the candidate they really want. There is no such thing as a perfect system and STV is probably the best compromise where first-preference votes in optimum multi-member seats are the main element in electing candidates with results vastly more fair than FPTP.
But of course STV is not the only more representative system - Scotland has a very good system: AMS divided between constituency and “additional” members 57:43
One further thought - if the USA had used AV for electing the President in 2000 we might have got Gore instead of Bush since most of the voters for Ralph Nader (who knew very well that Nader stood not the slightest chance of being elected) would have given their second preference to the Democrats.
Kind regards
Joe Patterson