False friends

Some STV supporters still don't get it. So long as they present the main argument as proportional representation (PR) v First Past The Post (FPTP), we shall attract false friends who will agree with us about the advantages of PR and then hijack the campaign to promote an inferior form of PR, such as AV+ or AMS. This also gives FPTP supporters an excuse to say that PR increases party power because most types of PR, except STV, do. Even if we won the argument that PR would be better than FPTP, we'd still have to win a second argument that STV was the best form of PR.

We must present the case for choice voting v all other systems, lumping FPTP and most PR systems together as party systems. The MPs' expenses scandal, the public outrage over the blatantly excessive claims of some MPs and the feeling of some MPs that Sir Thomas Legg and the Party Leaders are treating them unfairly create an exceptional opportunity for this. Yes, AMS, AV+ etc can deliver reasonably accurate PR between political parties and reduce electoral deserts but that's all. Choice voting in multi-member constituencies (STV) uniquely reduces party power, increases voter power, strengthens MPs' powers to scrutinize the Government's actions, makes MPs more accountable to voters and enables voters to sack MPs who underperform or are dishonest. It also strengthens the link between all MPs and their constituents. Not only all these advantages, but STV also happens to deliver PR between parties and any other groupings that matter to voters; i.e. People Representation

Petition to No. 10
The petition and additional information at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/voterchoice explain how choice voting in multi-member constituencies (STV) would help voters to reward good MPs and let them sack corrupt ones without voting against their own party. Please visit and sign the petition to the Prime Minister. If you have signed already, will you please ask your nearest and dearest to sign as well?

I must warn you that, after you click to sign, you will be sent an e-mail asking you to click again to confirm your signature but, sometimes, over-efficient spam filters block the e-mail so, through no fault of your own, your signature may not be recorded. If you do not receive the e-mail in your inbox, may I suggest you check your spam or junk box?
The ERS President, most members of the ERS Council and the Chairmen of Electoral Reform Services Ltd and Electoral Reform International Services have signed; I hope soon to see your names on the petition as well.

Brown's AV "promise"
The PM announced at the recent Labour Party Conference that, if re-elected, the Government would hold a national referendum on whether to change the voting system to the Alternative Vote (AV). This may delight some and dismay others but, frankly, it seems totally irrelevant to me except that it is an important admission that the present system is not fit for purpose. It won't be relevant if, as seems likely at present, the Conservatives win the election. If Labour win outright, does anyone seriously believe they would honour a pledge to hold a referendum any more than they honoured their similar one of 1997? About the only circumstance in which there may be a referendum is if Labour are the largest party but without an overall majority, but then that could well happen without a manifesto pledge if the Liberal Democrats play their cards right.

If the PM is serious about holding a referendum and not merely offering a soggy carrot to Liberal Democrat voters in marginal Labour/Conservative constituencies, he will try to get legislation for it passed before the election so an incoming Conservative government will have to hold it unless it can persuade the Commons and Lords to repeal the legislation.

You can visit http://stvaction.org.uk/node/285 to see STV Action's view on the PM's announcement.

MP's expenses again
Sir Thomas Legg's letters to MPs this week have put MPs' expenses in the spotlight again. The public, quite rightly, think that some MPs still don't get it - MPs who think that all they have to do is repay the unjustified amount and then keep their jobs and, worse still, those who cannot see that a legal claim may nevertheless be immoral. On the other hand, some MPs justifiably feel that they are being blackmailed by Sir Thomas and their party leaders into repaying expenses that were legal and reasonable.

The ultimate arbiters on this should not be a retired civil servant or party leader but the public - voters. Unfortunately the present voting system prevents this. It does not realistically allow voters to choose between the more honest and less honest or between the good local representative and the less good. STV does. You can visit http://stvaction.org.uk/node/286 to see STV Action's view on how STV could help solve the problem of MPs' expenses fairly for voters and MPs.

More STV news
I draw your attention to www.stvAction.org.uk which contains much material relevant to STV not to be found on any other site. I hope you find it interesting and useful.

New reader?

If you do not usually receive this newsletter and would like copies in future, please use the link below to let me know.

Your views

Do please use the link near the top of this newsletter to tell me your views on its contents or on any other aspect of STV.