What everyone's been saying on electoral reform

Out we scurried from under the rocks and between the cracks, peeping our heads out from burrows, blinking in the Spring sunshine like small furry animals awakening from hibernation. Except our hibernation has lasted over a decade.

Not since the Jenkins Commission was so skillfully and completely ignored by Tony Blair in the early days of his premiership has electoral reform been prominent, and have its supporters dared to speak its name.

Most of the time, electoral reform is a huge turn-off for most of the people. Have no doubt that it will be again, before too long. There's only so long non-wonks can maintain an interest in the often bizarre and occasionally arcane ways different countries elect their policians to high office.

So we need to grasp the nettle and do all we can to bring change about now.

In that light, I was especially pleased to see the Observer comment section this morning.

Worryingly, the Observer editorial agrees with almost everything I've been saying over the last couple of weeks, from not calling a snap General Election to getting rid of safe seats and supporting the Single Transferable Vote (STV) as the best way to give voters more power whilst maintaining the constituency link.

Andrew Rawnsley take a similar line, argues against too many independents. He even questions the way MPs have become glorified Citizens Advice Bureaux (and, probably with some justification, suggests that one's down to the Lib Dems).

It would be lovely if I could say that they'd all been looking at my blog and thinking "My God, this Quist chappie's got it all right. We must regurgitate his every thought in our great organ."

The reality, I suspect, whilst not quite so ego-enhancing for me, is even better. Progressives from across the political spectrum are reaching very similar conclusions. It's a very good sign. An excellent way for reform to fall at the first hurdle is for reformers to collapse into internal bickering before they've even got near to winning over the sceptics.

If we're thinking along similar lines, and have a willingness to compromise, this is the best chance in over a decade of achieving real change in the way we're governed.

Here are some of my posts on the issue:

Back in November 2008 I suggested that asking MPs to be a Citizens Advice Bureau as well as a legislator might not be ideal, and perhaps the the functions should be split.

In September 2008, I noted that Lib Dem MPs are more highly rated by constituents and thought it might be because so few of them have safe seats.

In December I pointed out that PR might well be bad for the Lib Dem's electoral chances, but that we should have it anyway. However, I also noted that Westminster's rules and processes aren't geared up for coalition governments so there would have to be some reform to those if PR was to be successful.

A couple of weeks ago I noted a possible correlation between majority size and embroilment in the expenses scandal, only to be massively, and rightly, scooped by Mark Reckons' excellent analysis that went a long way to confirm the correlation (he'd actually done the work).

I've since made a few posts about electoral reform, laying out my own preference for STV but noting that there are arguments against, challenges to be overcome and compromises to be made.

This is my blog so I'm allowed to pimp my posts, but of course loads of other bloggers have been saying good things - not all of which I agree with.

To name just a few, a small elephant I know has a few things to say on General Elections, libertarian Jock Coats is having a bit of a downer with the whole democracy business, Alix Mortimer has been pushing the case for electoral reform over at Lib Dem Voice (which seems to be intent on maintaining a ratio of being eight times more popular than my blog), Bernard Salmon discussed the thoughts of the great ("If you were the only") Shirl ("in the world") and Mary Reid gave her excellent take on the issue.

Then there's Alan Thomas arguing for a quick election on Liberal Conspiracy and Charlotte Gore somehow finding time to argue against (inbetween being disappointed with Obama, disgusted with Labour and sounding a note of caution about that Mark Reckons research).

As Alix noted, even the Cleggster has been getting in on the act at PMQs. Even Labour Home have been getting in on the act, with this article from Matt Strong provoking a good deal of debate.

These aren't the only folks with good things to say, but unfortunately the battery on my laptop is running low and I probably ought to get up and do something more useful with my life day.

If you've written something on electoral reform around the current issues, go ahead and link to it in the comments. Even better if it's opposed to change - let's get those arguments out there and give them a good dusting off.