A vote against folly

9 April 2011

Follow Churchill’s advice in the 5 May referendum

On 5 May, in the name of a spurious pursuit of fairness, the nation will be asked to abolish the ancient system of first past the post by which we have for centuries chosen our parliamentarians. ‘It’s unfair!’ is the whine of the aggrieved infant down the ages, to which adults rightly reply that life is often unfair, and success goes to those who can adapt themselves to that fact. I hope the British people will tell Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg precisely that next month.

First past the post selects the candidate constituents want the most, rather than the one they don’t want the least. Candidates who say what they believe, attempting to appeal to more voters than their rivals, will inevitably make far better parliamentarians than those who obfuscate their message to pick up second- and third-preference votes. First past the post is thus the manly, straightforward way of electing people who stand for principles, whereas the Alternative Vote is the smarmy, hole-in-the-corner way of electing people who try to appear all things to all men.

Since the expenses scandal, our politicians are widely despised. Last week the annual audit of political engagement from the Hansard Society showed that general satisfaction among the public with Parliament fell 6 per cent to 27 per cent, making MPs less popular than estate agents, traffic wardens and journalists. How much worse would that be if we changed our voting system to ensure that candidates get elected by trying to seem innocuous? The Commons is infested with quite enough milksop and lobby-fodder MPs already; AV is almost specifically designed to increase their numbers, and decrease the number of those who speak their minds.

1 | 2 | 3 Next page