I appreciate that some people feel strongly that the current First Past the Post electoral system in this country is unfair. However, it seems to me that Britain’s traditional system for elections to the House of Commons has many strengths. It is, in my view, a force for unity and stability. First Past the Post ensures that each MP represents a recognisable constituency and usually ensures that there is a single party in government which can be judged on its record and ejected from office if it fails.
By contrast, I think there are good reasons to oppose alternative systems. Proportional representation would weaken the link between members and their constituencies. It would prevent any single party having a majority, resulting in permanent coalitions, characterised by deals by politicians taken behind closed doors. Proportional systems can also allow candidates to be elected with very low shares of the vote, opening the door to extremists.
Proportional representation can also be excessively complicated. You may know that in the 2007 elections for the Scottish Parliament, voters were presented with an array of different preferential voting systems, which unfortunately led to a very high number of spoiled ballot papers. Democracy itself is put in jeopardy when voters cannot be sure what their vote might mean.
It is for these reasons that the Conservative manifesto committed the Government to respect the will of the British people, as expressed in the 2011 referendum, and keep First Past the Post for elections to the House of Commons.
