Whilst having no particular axe to grind, it does annoy me that those who wish to argue for some form of Proportional Representation do so by implying that it is 'self-evidently' true that the current system is unfair.
It isn't.
The latest person to jump on this bandwagon was Nigel Farage, who told us how unfair it was on his own party, Ukip, and the Greens, to have acquired so few seats in Parliament, given the number of votes they secured nationally. In particular, he compared the parties' totals with those secured by the SNP in Scotland.Leaving aside the obvious observation that the population in Scotland is far less than in England, and that the SNP does not field candidates in England, there is, to me, a far more serious flaw in his thinking. Let me explain by coming at it from the other direction.
Supposing I was describing the present British political system to someone from the other side of the world who knew nothing about our country. If asked whether we are represented fairly, I might put it like this: In every locality/village/town each resident person over the age of 18 (regardless of status, wealth, etc.) is entitled to one vote, to vote for an individual who will represent that locality/village/town in the national Parliament. Anyone can stand for election, and the person who wins most votes duly represents that locality/village/town (we call them constituencies). Now, what could be fairer than that?
The flaw in the argument of Farage (and others like him) is applying a different category (namely, the total number of votes secured nationally) to that system. But we don't vote in one constituency called the United Kingdom!
Now, some might come back at me and say that the problem with the constituency model is that each of those elected individuals (with, at times, one or two exceptions) are allied to a particular political party, enabling a smaller proportion of those elected to wield considerable power by ganging up on all the other elected individuals. That's what we call a Government!
Don't get me wrong: I'm not totally heartless or lacking in empathy. I can appreciate the frustration of Ukip and Green Party members (and Liberals in times past) who believe the system doesn't give them a fair crack of the whip.
If they want to argue that we should do away with our historic constituency-based parliamentary set-up - with all its attendant virtues and strengths - and go for a pure percentage based national vote (a bit like a referendum), then fine. If they want to argue that the latter is better suited to modern political life, and would make for better national debate and decision-making, then fine.
But don't do so by claiming that the present system is so obviously and self-evidently unfair.
