By Keith Best, Chair of Conservative Action for Electoral Reform:

The Conservative-led coalition has promised a referendum next May to let the people choose between the present voting system (first past the post) and the Alternative Vote (AV) for electing MPs. What should Conservatives do in the referendum? A fully fair proportional system would be the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies but this will not be an option in the referendum and, in any event, is not favoured by many Conservatives.

The basic difference for the voters, if the change takes place, is simply that they will be able to vote 1, 2, 3 according to their real preferences, instead of with X sometimes based on whom they want to keep out. The other change they will notice is that their MP will enjoy the support at least half the valid votes whereas over two-thirds of current MPs were elected with a much smaller share of the vote. For example, Madeleine Morgan (Labour, Bridgend) had only 36% of the votes in May 2010 while Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South) had only 35%.

For Conservatives, there are many attractions for this relatively small change to the electoral system. AV will:-
• retain single-member constituencies;
• strengthen the link between MPs and constituents because each MP will be elected by at least half the valid votes;
• and, because of that, also strengthen MPs’ authority in Parliament;
• give voters more influence because it will encourage them to vote positively for the candidate they most want and (if they wish) to rank the candidates in order of choice;
• demonstrate by preferential voting the true level of support for the Conservatives in metropolitan and other areas where the Conservative Party has been squeezed. For example, in constituencies like Dundee East and Rochdale, the party’s true strength will emerge because Tory voters will be able to make the party their first choice without fear of letting the “wrong” party in by splitting the vote.

Furthermore, it is not a proportional system, which Liberal Democrats would have preferred.

Overall, AV will be better for voters because more votes will influence the results and will not be wasted, and better for the country because MPs will carry more authority with the support of more votes.

Q. Which was the only party that promised a referendum on AV in its General Election Manifesto in 2010?
A. Labour.
Q. Which party is electing a new leader by AV right now?
A. Labour.
Q. Which is the only major party now threatening to vote against holding a referendum on AV?
A. Labour!

To be fair to Labour, a Shadow Minister has assured me, “I do not believe that there was any element of Shadow Cabinet election tactics or other internal party politics colouring the decision in any way. Nor was there any suggestion that we should resile from our manifesto commitment to a referendum on AV…. Labour has some straightforward points of principled opposition to the boundary change proposals and there is simply no need for these proposals to be in the same Bill as the AV referendum.”

I have no reason to doubt that Shadow Minister’s sincerity but, although I would have no objection if the referendum legislation was separate from that for boundary changes, it is clear that it won’t be. My guess is that the Government has calculated that it will be easier to persuade reluctant Tory MPs to support the referendum legislation if it is coupled to the other. I hope that, if Labour really wants the referendum as it says it does, it won’t oppose the legislation despite its views on boundary changes. Otherwise, many may think, rightly or wrongly, that it is being hypocritical and opposing the legislation for which it campaigned merely to try to split the coalition and defeat the Government.

Once the legislation is passed with or without Labour support, Labour will have to make the real decision – whether to campaign for a “Yes” vote. If its only objection to the legislation is its link to boundary changes, then it will be difficult to see how it could not support the “Yes” campaign for the system it uses itself.

STV Action congratulates Katie Ghose on her recently announced appointment as the Electoral Reform Society’s Chief Executive.

Katie is an experienced campaigner and a barrister. She is currently the Director of the British Institute of Human Rights; she is also a trustee and the company secretary of Stonewall.

As she said in the announcement of her appointment, she is joining “the Society at an exciting time. The coming referendum will be the first time the British people have had the opportunity to decide how they elect the politicians who speak in their name.”

We wish her well first in winning the “Yes” vote in the AV referendum next May and then in her subsequent time with the Society.

The Electoral Reform Society is a natural step for Katie because the right to a fair vote that counts is a human right and Katie has campaigned for many years for human rights.

David Cameron said on the BBC's "Today" programme this morning that he was "very confident" that the AV referendum would go ahead: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8862000/8862987.stm

The BBC reported yesterday that the (Labour) Shadow Cabinet had decided to oppose the legislation to hold a referendum on whether to elect MPs by the Alternative Vote (AV). How hypocritical! How unprincipled! The Labour Party was the only party to promise a referendum on AV in its election manifesto less than three months ago. Now it is the first party to oppose the very legislation it had promised.

I suspect that its main motive is to try to split the coalition and bring it down. Of course, Labour MPs would prefer to be in Government and, indeed, many Liberal Democrats might have preferred to share power with Labour than with the Conservatives, but the voting arithmetic was not right for that. The people spoke and gave more votes and seats to the Conservatives than to Labour.

However, Labour's stated reason for opposing the legislation is that the Bill links the AV referendum to reducing the number of constituencies and equalizing their electorates. If Mr Cameron is serious about holding the referendum and keeping the coalition together, he should separate the referendum legislation from the other. Then, either Labour will support the referendum legislation and it will be passed or the party will be shown to be really unprincipled.

There also some unprincipled Conservative MPs who threaten to vote with Labour against holding the referendum. Although they are entitled to oppose AV itself, they are not entitled to renege on their party's agreement with the Liberal Democrats. If they expect Liberal Democratic support for some Conservative policies, they must support the referendum legislation.

Conservatives who oppose the coalition should also consider the voting arithmetic. The people did not give them enough votes or seats to form a Conservative Government but, in coalition, they can get some Conservative policies through IF they support certain Liberal Democrat policies such as the AV referendum.

They may think that, if the coalition falls, Mr Cameron can call an election and sweep to one-party power but I doubt it. Voters may well blame the Conservative Party for breaking the coalition agreement and punish it in the polls. In any case, the public still seems to distrust politicians and would be reluctant to give total power to one party.

The bottom line is that the only legitimate way to oppose AV is to oppose it in the referendum itself. MPs should no more decide how they are themselves elected than bankers should decide what laws should control banking. It is deceitful, underhand and undemocratic to try to stop the referendum being held; it reeks of desperation. Let the referendum be held and trust the people to decide.

Some MPs are trying to change the referendum date from 5 May 2011 because, they say, holding it on the same day as English local and Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections would artifically increase the turnout. What would be artificial about that?

British electors are notorious for not wanting to vote frequently, so it makes sense to hold the referendum on the same day as scheduled elections.

It looks as though the MPs who object to this arrangement fear a good turnout; they recognize that most people would vote "Yes", so they hope to win on a low turnout. This gives me great hope that commonsense will prevail and the people will vote "Yes". It is deperate tactics by these MPs to try to stop a "Yes" victory.

Don't MPs and commentators complain about low turnouts, so doesn't it make sense to encourage people to vote in this important referendum?

If holding two ballots on the same day "artifically" boosts turnout and in some way invalidates the vote, how valid was the election of MPs and Councillors on 6 May 2010?

The Government published today the question to be asked in the AV referendum on 5 May 2011.

The full text of the question is: "Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the 'alternative vote' system instead of the current 'first past the post' system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?"

Under the alternative vote (AV) system, voters rank candidates in their constituency in order of preference.

There is no doubt that AV is better than first past the post. Two key advantages of AV is that each MP would be elected by at least half the votes and voters would no longer have to vote tactically to make their votes count instead of voting as they really feel.

The Commons used STV to elect its Deputy Speakers and Chairs of Committees. (I expect it was the AV version for the Chairs.)Speaker Bercow announced the results yesterday. So it's the best way for MPs to elect their representatives. Why don't they admit it would be the best way for the rest of us to elect them?