And now for something disappointingly serious...

The Problem with PR

Proportional Representation is often cited as the 'fairest' of the electoral methods, and the most democratic it could be before slipping from representative to direct democracy. Perhaps it is; after all, the party preferences of the nation are reflected exactly in Parliament, with every vote counting. Compare this to First Past the Post, where the percentages of votes and seats accrued by a party are often grossly different, and many votes go wasted in a constituency which traditionally always selects the same party.  However, PR is by no means perfect. I will examine some of its flaws here.

Firstly, there is the most commonly cited argument of the coalition government. This particular one is disputable, depending on one's personal views. PR will almost definitely result in a Hung Parliament after each General Election; parties very rarely achieve over 50% of the nation's vote, meaning no-one has a majority. The result is the need to form a coalition of two parties or more. This is where one of two issues arises. 

While no one of the three major parties gains more than half the electorate's votes, the 50% mark can usually be reached when the total for two of the three are added together. It is very doubtful that Labour and the Conservatives, traditional enemies, would form a coalition. Therefore, if a two-party coalition were the main objective, the Liberal Democrats would usually become the junior partner. This means the fate of each election would effectively rest with them; they choose who to go into government with, assuming their seats would cause a majority for either Labour or the Tories. This could lead to criticism, as they would have a disproportionately large amount of power, deciding as they would which party becomes government.

The alternative is discounting the Lib Dems, and attempting to form a coalition with many other smaller parties. However, this would lead to coalitions made up of many partners, any of whom could theoretically block a bill if it weren't to their taste. For want of a better example, Weimar Germany showed the inefficiency of a PR based Parliament. Any proposed bill would have to be seriously based on compromise, which would leave no partner fully satisfied.

The next flaw in PR is that it would remove local representation. An advantage of plurality based systems, like FPTP, is that each area has a recognisable candidate whom it has chosen to represent them. PR does away with constituencies, therefore removing local representatives, and a direct link to the House of Commons for the electorate. How does an unhappy person voice their complaint to Parliament, without a local MP who can be held accountable? Theoretically, each party could allocate its MPs to a region, but this process would be messy, and there is no guarantee that the allocated individual would suit the people they were meant to represent.

The final issue is similar to the last, in that people have no choice over who is actually elected. Yes, they choose the people on an indirect, macro level, but they have no say over individuals. Say a party has a devious, cunning member who would be very useful in a democratically elected governmental position; a latter day Peter Mandelson figure, if you will. Such a figure would probably be seen as unelectable by the people, regardless of how useful the party may find him. However, under PR, he could be put at the top of the party list, ergo meaning that as long as he chose to run for Parliament, he would always find himself with a seat.

This is why I do not believe Britain should move to full PR. However, I don't feel either that it should stick with FPTP, or even settle for the Alternative Vote. My method of choice is a form of the Additional Member system. The Commons would have a slightly raised number of seats (say, 700), and the number of constituencies would be reduced to 500. Each constituency would elect an MP via a system like FPTP, or preferably the Instant Run-off method (think London mayoral elections: numbered preferences, if no candidate achieves a majority of number 1 preferences then everyone bar the two highest candidates are eliminated. Preferences are distributed until a majority is achieved). The remaining 200 seats are allocated on a proportional basis based on the nationwide vote tallies. It combines strong government and local representation with elements of electoral fairness.