However AV would bring about less proportionality that FPTP, Simulations of how the 1997 result might have come out under AV suggest that it would have significantly increased the size of the already swollen Labour majority. The overall Labour majority could thus have risen from 169 to 245. AV on its own, because it makes use exclusively of single-member constituencies, would fail to address several of the more significant defects of FPTP. In particular, there would still be large tracts of the country which would be electoral deserts for major parties. Conservative voters in Scotland, for example, might only hope to influence the result through their second choice. And although AV would probably increase the number of marginal seats thus reducing the number of voters effectively excluded from influencing the overall result, most seats in the country would remain safe.
In conclusion, AV does not amend the main issues with FPTP; it does not counter disproportionality in the electorate but rather adding to it and mutating the results. Why change from the well known FPTP to a system that would only do the same and more? Therefore AV is rejected, despite what many see as its very considerable advantage of ensuring that every constituency member gains majority acquiescence.
The Single Transferable Vote
This system has many advantages: It maximises voter choice, giving the electorate power to express preference not only between parties but between different candidates of the same party. It achieves a significantly greater degree of proportionality.. It has long worked with on the whole beneficial results in the Republic of Ireland (as we have seen), a country which had previously shared at least a part of the British parliamentary tradition. It has also just produced a clear cut change of government in Malta. And STV is in addition the system which commands the enthusiastic support of most of those who have devoted their minds and their energies to the cause of electoral reform.
But is STV all that it’s cracked up to be? Its disadvantages are collectively formidably compared to its advantages. Britain has a population of 58 1/2 million as against Ireland's 3 1/2 million. This would mean that the constituencies would have to be five or six times larger than Ireland’s would lead to an excessive number of choice and a long ballot paper except which can be avoided by increasing the number of MPs leading to a whole different set of problems.STV, offering a range of MPs has the effect of being asked a series on unnecessary questions which would lead to boredom and irritation which leads to casting random and therefore meaningless votes. Many only interested in voting for parties would not appreciate being forced into choosing between candidates of the same party about each of whom they know little. It is the counting rather than the casting of the votes which is excessively complicated under STV. This complexity and consequent slowness of counting cannot be counted as an advantage.A Speaker's Conference on electoral reform in January 1917 unanimously recommended single transferable vote (STV) for elections to the House of Commons. However, in a vote that August, the Commons rejected STV by 32 votes in the committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill- its already been rejected before.
The introduction of STV would be too great a leap from FPTP, going in a direction that is undoubtly different that the one existing, causing confusion. Considering the less densely populated constituencies, reconciling with the break of the bond between the MP would be hard and time consuming.
Additional Member System
If we do not go in an STV direction the alternative must be the Additional Member System (AMS). This has worked very well in Germany for half a century, why won’t it work for us? It’s flexible thus enabling greater proportionality and the maintenance of the MP/constituency link, guarantees an increase in voter choice and stability of the government .Its gold and seems like the ideal system to go into.
But it isn’t- it would create two categories or classes of MPs, as it involves picking the MPs through two different methods especially in constituencies regarded as having a greater prestige over the others. In Wales and , for example, AMs and MSPs elected via the regional lists have been seen as having 'got in via the backdoor' or as 'assisted place' or 'second class' members hence creating animosity between them and causing the government to be unstable. And AMS does not maintain the bond between MP and her/her constituencies as previously stated as this bond is superficial and fragile and with the example of a rival and equally active MP of an opposing party on the scene, this link eventually weakened if not broken. Political parties may also abuse the system as one contest the constituency seats, the other contests for the list seats. This will produce an overhang. They can co-ordinate their campaign and work together within the legislature, while remaining legally separate entities. This can also give other advantages in areas such as party funding. And finally the last and damning disadvantage to using this system in Britain would be the mass confusion it would cause because the public would be confused on what exactly to do with their two votes-it may not be complicated and complex but it is mentally tasking .What’s so wrong about putting an x in the ballot paper and forget about it?
Party List System
Party list systems can be crudely split into two distinct forms: open and closed. The main difference is that in a closed party-list system, votes are cast for parties rather than people, whereas in an open party list system, votes are cast for individual candidates. This is used in the British elections to the European Parliament, Israel's Parliament-the Knesset and The Netherlands' Second Chamber. Its used mainly because it theoretically provides proportionality, there are not wasted votes compared to FPTP because very vote is equal and it is very easy. It also ensures that women and other ethnic minorities are represented.
But unlike FPTP, there is a very weak link between the MP and the constituencies if the closed party list is used as it becomes impersonal. It does not give a wide variety of choice; neither does it give power to the electorate except choosing a party for government, the rest resides with the party leaders. And while it appears to represent the minorities, the party leaders would opt to choose the safe candidates at the expense of these minorities and underrepresented groups. This system gives too much power to the parties themselves and the party leaders as parties may stifle independent and minority opinion within their ranks. So when the power lies in the hands of those who get seats, which indirectly means that the power is with the party machine that includes the power to voice opinions.
At first glance, party list system seems like a perfect system -rosy and proportional but it isn’t. This system steals the power from the electorate and bestows it on party leaders and all they are really doing is discriminating against those not willing to be part of the party structure and suppressing minorities.
Public Interest
The question asked was- if a referendum were held tomorrow on whether to stick with first-past-the-post or switch to the Alternative Vote for electing MPs, how would you vote?
Poll done by YouGov
As shown by the chart and subsequent graph, public interest in AV and the coalitions plans are slowing dwindling-this is not helped by the opposition launched by Labour and some Tory members. If the government themselves are divided on it (51 per cent of Tories were anti-AV with about 30 per cent in favour. The rest were neutral.)And the public are slowly but surely realising the harm and confusing that the electoral reforms as a whole would cause, why would it be a good thing. By early June, the support for AV was a thin 42% compared to the 34% vying for FPTP, and it began to slowly climb while FPTP accelerated in drips. What’s interesting though id the increase in the percent of people that that are still undecided. By the time the referendum comes, predicts political bloggist Jim Pickard, support may plummet as low as support for the lib dems.
Chart
Conclusion
I can conclude that after scrutinizing the various electoral systems available and taking into consideration public interest, electoral reforms would not be the way to go-after all if it aint broke why fix it?