This page deals with typical arguments against PR which were brought up in a House of Commons debate about the Jenkins Commision [Hansard 2 june 1998 col. 171 et. seq.]

Michael Ancram was putting forward a motion to the effect that as the criteria set for a system to be recommended by the Jenkins commission were met by first-past-the-post then that sytem should be included in their remit. this of course is not relevant per se to the merits of one system as compared witrh another. The main arguments against PR that came up were:

1. Under PR small parties have disproportionate power (defined as time in government); election under FPTP is 'judgement day' and voters know whom to blame and how to get rid of them. By contrast FPTP gives proportionality between votes and power defined as time in govmt.

A: The fact that a small party may be given a place in government does not necessarily give it real power. They may get the trappings of power, and that may make MPs jealous, but it doesn't affect most of us. In any case it should not be the interests of parties or MPs that are paramount, but rather those of voters.

2. New Zealand had adopted a PR system they call MMP. It is closely related to AMS now used in Scotland, Wales and Germany. The first election under MMP was held in 1996. The 'new Zealand first' party under Winston Peters had campaigned against the National Party, but after the election entered into coalition with them. It was claimed in the debate that New Zealanders therefore hated MMP.

A: It is unreasonable to blame the system for one man breaking faith with voters. Support for 'New Zealand First' plummetted as a result and that trick probably will not be repeated. Comment since has on balance been favourable.

3. PR breaks the one to one link between constituents and MPs;

A: The one to one link is good for MPs, but do constituents care? There is some evidence that they would probably be grateful for a choice of MP to consult.

4. Under PR coalition just about inevitable.

A: We accept that balanced parliaments would be very likely. It doesn't have to be a coalition. We like minority government. But isn't the Conservative Party a crypto coalition? Isn't New Labour?

5. In Germany the smallest party (FDP) is perpetually in government (and has changed sides).

A: As it is a centre party, why not? Why should a crypto coalition have priority over an open coalition that has attracted more votes? If the FDP were to do a Winston Peters it would suffer just as New Zealand First did. It could only get away with changing sides because public opinion was not clearly on one side or the other. After the 2005 election the two largest parties (CDU and SPD) formed a coalition, shutting out the FDP - and why not?

6. PR allows extremists in.

A: True as far as it goes. Generally not enough get elected to do any harm. In fact typically they get shown up as unconstructive and useless, and lose support. In Germany before the 2nd World War, where PR was operating, the Nazis never achieved an absolute majority in free elections. At the Nuremberg trials Goering boasted that they would have achieved a majority if they had had the British system - i.e. first-past-the-post.

7. Under PR the complexion of government can change without election.

A: Is this really any worse than when Thatcher was ousted in favour of Major? There was a definite change of style without a public election. It is true there was a party election but did this satisfy the public? We don't know. Also Brown was supposed to be different from Blair, but he didn't face any election.

8. Jack Straw claimed that US elections with 2 party system are proportional under first-past-the-post.

A: This may be true by sheer chance, but only because of a particular geographical distribution of votes.

9. Under PR most decisions are fudged. Tough decisions cannot be made.

A: Plenty of decisions are fudged in Britain under first-past-the-post. Norway has PR and seems to have made some pretty tough decisions.

10. Major: under PR a sitting PM could have retained power continuously since WW2.

A: Really? So what?

11. PR means more control by parties, less by voters.

A: True with the list based systems New Labour has imposed on us. Not true with the Single Transferable Vote which we advocate.

We conclude that politicians' motives are almost entirely ones of self or party interest. We wonder why the public isn't even more angry about this than about MPs expenses. We are frustrated that those campaigning against various aspects of government policy will not make the connections and demand the system is changed.