Every PR system has its supporters and opponents, but they all share one undeniable advantage over First Past The Post; they would produce a House of Commons that reflected the political views of voters more accurately than First Past The Post does and would reduce the possibility that any one party would hold an overall majority in the House (an elected dictatorship) based on only 33% - 43% of the votes in the country as the Labour and Conservative parties have done for many years.

However, although the Single Transferable Vote (STV) happens to be a proportional system, that is almost a spin-off. Its main advantage over other systems is that it transfers power from parties to voters when most PR systems do the opposite. It also prevents vote-splitting, which is a feature of First Past The Post that let the BNP gain a disproportionate number of Council seats in Stoke-on-Trent and Burnley. Moreover, STV has specific advantages that are highly relevant to the present expenses scandal:

• Because STV lets voters place the candidates in order of choice, voters can choose the scrupulously honest and careful over those who are less so and the slightly careless over the very careless or dishonest.

• STV in multi-member constituencies allows voters to choose between different candidates from the same party. This enables them to vote against individual candidates who have abused the expenses system without voting against their own party.

Unfortunately, STV’s ability to transfer power from parties to people is a disadvantage in one way; it makes many politicians (with a few honourable exceptions) very reluctant to support it. As Padav wrote recently in a blog on this site:

“It is a self-evident truth that in any decent society, the rules governing those who govern should remain the exclusive preserve of those who are governed.”

Let the people decide! A national jury or citizens’ convention to choose an alternative system and then a referendum to decide between First Past The Post and the alternative.