Prominent ERS member and academician, Dr David Hill, submitted the following letter to "The Times” on 6 May but, sadly, they did not publish it:

"The figures for the recent election for Mayor of London show, once again, the absurdity of the Supplementary Vote system that is used. There were 2,207,070 voters of whom only 2,047,084 were allowed to take part in the second round that actually chose the winner. In other words there were 159,986 people who took the trouble to turn out and vote who were disenfranchised by the system, while the winning margin was only 62,538. We can never know who would have won had those voters been allowed their say.

The system was introduced by the Labour Government but the present coalition, far from doing anything to put it right, have actually made things worse by adopting the same bad system for the election of police chiefs later this year."

Regular readers of STV Action will know that the Alternative Vote (AV) would solve the problem.

The absurdity of the Supplementary Vote (SV) is that its supporters admit the failings of First Past The Post (FPTP), but the system fails to remedy them. To have a chance of making their votes effective under the SV system, voters have to guess who will be the top two candidates in the first round of counting.

Curiously, the Labour Government acknowledged the faults of FPTP when it introduced SV for mayoral elections and the present coalition Government did the same when it introduced the system for police chief elections, but most of the politicians who supported SV, which allegedly solves the problems of FPTP, last year opposed AV, which really would solve the problem for filling single vacancies.

Howard Davies: "We should now concentrate on one system."

Peter Morley, an active ERS member, sent an excellent e-mail, repeated below, to the “Daily Politics” BBC TV programme today.

This is an excellent opportunity for STV Action, the Electoral Reform Society and their members and supporters and oither reformers to get behind STV as the one alternative to First Past The Post.

May I suggest that you write in to support him? The address is daily.politics@bbc.co.uk or, alternatively, you may contact the programme via Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/bbcdailyandsundaypolitics or Twitter - http://twitter.com/daily_politics.

“I am a keen watcher of Daily Politics and related programmes and have found Andrew Neil to be a most informative presenter (he always seems to have a clear and deep analysis to hand), and a focused interviewer - until today.

Today he was talking with Howard Davies and others about the elections across the UK today.

Both of them are intelligent and well read people yet when considering the different voting systems being used, they expected us to believe they hadn’t a clue and found some of them “incredibly complicated” and that explanations of the systems were “incomprehensible”!

This is just unbelievable - two people who can pronounce on world financial and political affairs cannot understand simple voting instructions for voters? It seems on this occasion, the research team providing Andrew Neil with back up information have let him down.

Howard Davies commented that as there have been so many experiments we should now concentrate on one system. I expect he intended that the one system chosen should be the one that does the best job!

The reason there are experiments is that our current voting system, First Past the Post (FPTP), is well and truly broken – it does not work except to give everyone a simple process when there are only two parties contesting elections! Those times are long-since gone as explained in “The Worst of Both Worlds: Why First Past the Post no longer works”, IPPR, Jan 2011.

I cannot remember who said it, but those voters who are confused, including, I suppose, both Andrew Neil and Howard Davies, were recommended to consult the Electoral Commission. Unfortunately, they will not find the EC of much help in that respect, although it will give explanations of how to vote. The Government published a review of electoral systems some years ago but it did not provide a fair conclusion based on a clear and reasonably thorough examination of the different systems in use. The research cited seemed clear but the conclusions just didn’t flow from the research.

Voters should instead consult the Electoral Reform Society which since 1884 has promoted the Single Transferable Vote. That was the result of the Society’s predecessor consideration all voting systems to decide which resulted in voters’ having the greatest personal choice, and in the most representative results.

The most recent research by the ERS attached, “Britain’s experience of electoral systems”, ERS 2007, not only explains the voting systems and their pros and cons, but also demonstrates yet again the merits of STV above all the other systems. Other authoritative groups come up with similar conclusions, for example “Choosing an electoral system, A report by the British Academy Policy Centre”, March 2010.

The first use of STV for Scottish Local Elections in 2007 liberated Scottish voters from the stranglehold of aging political parties and gave them far more personal choice than they had before. The results today will be analysed by the ERS, and compared with those from the other elections which have mostly used FPTP.

I was disappointed by Andrew Neil’s flippant and apparently “off-hand” remarks which suggested he did not have much an understanding and grip on this subject as he usually does on others which are far more complex and complicated. I expected more of him than that as he seems to want to improve our representative democracy yet derides and belittles attempts to find for the basis of that democracy a better way of getting voters’ representation right – he should be encouraging discussion not dismissing it as “incredibly complicated”. He should reserve such phrases to matters that truly require them such as the financial crisis.

I hope you will ask the ERS for more information when looking at the results next week.”

Policy Exchange, a Conservative think tank issued a report on 27 April on the North/South political divide and this was discussed at the end of BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning.

The elephant in the room that the interviewer and interviewees ignored was the exaggerating effect of the First Past the Post (Winner takes All) voting system.

According to Policy Exchange’s own statistics, the Conservatives would achieve 33% of the votes in the North of England and Labour would achieve 25% in the South outside London. Although both figures are poor for what are perceived as the two major parties in England, they are nowhere near as bad as the number of Conservative MPs in the North and Labour MPs in the South outside London; there are hardly any.

This, of course, is because of the voting system. In fact, 33% and 25% are quite respectable minorities, which should be properly represented and would be with a proportional system such as STV.

In fact, with STV, the votes themselves for each party in its desert areas would probably increase. Many potential Conservative voters in the North and Labour in the South do not believe it is worth voting for their party because they know their votes will be worthless under the present voting system. That would change in time with STV as voters came to realise that votes could be effective.

The present Winner takes All voting system encourages and exaggerates the North/South political divide. STV would reduce it.

According to the Guardian, the Joint Committee on Lords Reform is recommending a bastardized version of STV for electing a reformed House of Lords.

Under this system borrowed from Australia, the ballot paper would be in two parts. Below the line, voters could vote by STV as we know it, with complete freedom of choice within and across parties, but voters could choose to vote above the line instead. Those voting above the line would vote for only one party in the order laid down by the party.

Although in theory voters could vote below the line, in practice UK parties, like their Australian counterparts, would undoubtedly encourage their supporters to vote above the line. It would suit each party to maximize its own vote and it would suit party bosses to get the candidates elected in their order rather than in the public’s order.

You may think that, so long as voters may vote below the line, there is no harm in offering them the lazy option of voting above the line; for those voting above the line, it would be their loss that they had failed to maximize the effect of their votes. Unfortunately that is wrong. Those who vote above the line reduce the effectiveness not only of their own votes but also the effectiveness of the votes below the line. A large proportion of votes above the line encouraged by the parties would outweigh the individual votes below the line and elect the party hacks wanted by the party bosses.

All this goes to show that we must not allow politicians to decide how they themselves will be elected. No club committee would decide how it should be elected. The club members themselves would decide. Why should politicians be exempt from this commonsense practice? A Citizens’ Convention would be one way of tackling the problem.

Please visit http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/serving-up-a-dogs-breakfast to read more about this.

First and foremost, there’s no choice with First Past The Post. For example:

• If you are a Labour supporter who would like more women in Parliament but the Labour candidate is a man, you have to grit your teeth and either vote for the Labour man or for a Liberal Democrat or Conservative woman if you can, but those parties’ candidates may also be men.

• If you are a Conservative Europhobe faced with a Conservative Europhile candidate, you have to vote for the Conservative who disagrees with you on the EU or for the UKIP candidate who agrees with you on that issue but perhaps not on other issues.

• If you are a Liberal Democrat who would prefer a coalition with Labour but your Liberal Democrat candidate prefers coalition with the Conservatives, you either vote for the Liberal Democrat who leans to the Conservatives or you desert your own party and vote Labour.

• If you believe that the MP of your party has been a bad constituency MP or has abused the expenses system, you cannot vote against him (usually a “him”) without also voting against your own party.

In addition, as the Electoral Reform Society has pointed out:

“The current system means:

• Many of our votes just don’t count. Millions of people have no chance of deciding who their MP will be. Our votes are wasted by the system.

• Only a few of us matter. Parties continue to focus all their time, money and effort on a handful of 'marginal seats', so just a few thousand voters can decide who runs Britain.

• MPs can speak for the many with support from the few. Most MPs can be elected to Parliament even though the vast majority of voters don’t want them.

• A divided Britain. Whole parts of the country are ‘electoral deserts’ where parties have no representation despite having real support. Just ask Labour supporters across the South or Conservatives in Scotland and Wales.”

The Electoral Reform Society’s Council had a very useful debate about this on 31 March 2012. Although no decision was made, there was a clear consensus of support for campaigning for STV for local government elections in Wales and England. Of course, those lucky enough to live in Scotland or Northern Ireland already elect their local councillors by STV.

The case is overwhelming. Among other reasons, there are more blatant examples of bad governance and a lack of democratic accountability in local government than there are in the higher tiers, e.g.:

1. One party Councils where the same party has been in control for years, sometimes generations;
2. The wrong party being in control (i.e. without even the most votes let alone more than half the votes);
3. Many unelected councillors returned unopposed in safe seats.

Although those particular defects of First Past The Post could be mitigated by virtually any PR system, only STV would also increase voters’ choices, which is probably even more important in local government than in national government. Moreover, many areas still have a strong tradition of independent Councillors which STV, more than any other system, would protect.

The European Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs Committee has recommended that some MEPs should be elected from a pan-European list drawn from at least one third of the Member States. The recommendation comes from a proposal by British MEP, Andrew Duff (Liberal Democrat).

STV Action is neutral about whether there should be a pan-European list but, if there is to be one, we strongly recommend that the MEPs on it should be elected by STV.

The typical voter’s first choice would probably be for a candidate who is from both that voter’s party and country. The kind of list system the UK uses now to elect MEPs would prevent that. If the top of the pan-European Conservative list was a German, a British Conservative voter might have to choose between voting for the German Conservative and, say, a British Labour candidate. STV would let British Conservatives choose a British Conservative candidate first.

Now let’s say a British Labour voter has chosen a British Labour candidate as first choice and there are no other British Labour candidates. The freedom of choice that is available only with STV would let the voter choose between another Socialist candidate (say, French) or another British candidate (say, Green). With a party list system, this would not be possible.

Of course, some voters might want to vote other than on party or nationality. For example, a voter who wanted more women in the European Parliament might prefer to vote for women across national and party boundaries. Only STV would allow this.

I wish all readers a very Happy New Year.

Although we lost the battle last year on AV, the war is by no means over.

There is widespread dissatisfaction with the political system in the UK.

Some people are unhappy about the present political system but take First Past The Post for granted and don’t realise that there are better voting systems. They just condemn politics generally. We have to educate them.

Some support various reforms, such as allowing voters to recall MPs in some circumstances, which might scratch the surface of the problems, but they don’t realise that changing the voting system could help much more. We have to educate them as well.

Yet others support proportional representation (PR) to achieve greater fairness between the political parties, but they don’t understand that most types of PR except STV would increase the power of political parties; they don’t realise that only STV would increase voters’ power and freedom of choice and would reduce the power of parties. We have to educate these potential allies who might otherwise be our opponents by campaigning for inferior forms of PR, which would be against the interests of voters.

Of course, many politicians understand only too well that STV would reduce party power and increase people power and that's why they oppose it.

Only STV would provide real PR (People Representation).

Warmest wishes,

Anthony Tuffin.

Ireland’s voters go to the polls today to elect a President by the Alternative Vote (AV) – the voting system that UK voters rejected in a referendum earlier this year.

There are seven candidates. If the Irish used the first past the post voting system used in the UK, there would be a danger that the winner would have only just over a seventh (say 15%) of the votes; i.e. that nearly six-sevenths (say 85%) of the voters did not want the winner!

Fortunately, Ireland uses the much more democratic AV system, which will make sure that the winner is elected by over half the final votes and will thus enjoy the confidence of the majority.

The result is expected on Saturday afternoon (29 October).

We’ve had a referendum ON AV. What about referendums BY AV?

The Scottish Government is reported to be considering a three-way referendum on Scotland’s future in the UK and some UK MPs are demanding a three-way referendum on the UK’s future in the EU. In both referendums, the choice would be between:

• Retaining the status quo;
• Negotiating a new relationship within;
• Leaving.

Surely even the most adamant supporter of FPTP and opponent of AV in the recent referendum can see the danger of running a three-way referendum by FPTP.

Would supporters of compete independence accept the result if the status quo won with 33% of the votes with 32% for each of the other two options? How would supporters of the status quo feel about the opposite result? Come to think of it, how would any group feel about coming second in, say, a 44 – 42 – 14 vote?

Frankly, it would be unrealistic and rather silly to assume that the side that came second would accept any such result or that the public would have any faith in it.

The only sensible way to hold a three-way referendum is by AV. It would ensure that the result reflected the views of the majority of voters.

For the benefit of new readers, let’s explain how it works:

Voters would simply vote “1” for their first choice and “2” for their second.

All the first choices would be counted. If one of the three options had more than half the votes at that stage, it would be the winner.

If not, the losing option (in third place) would drop out and its votes would simply be transferred to the second choices of its supporters. Whichever of the two remaining options then had the more votes (i.e. over half) would be the winner.

Then we’d all know which option the majority of voters wanted. Don’t politicians want to know what the majority of voters think?