It's the voting system, stupid

I've advocated PR because it's fairer. However, because it's fairer, it tends to show up over time and place as being more engaging. So in this article viewing the post mortem of the UK's local polls recently, we learn:

International evidence shows countries that use our first-past-the-post system do far worse on voter involvement than countries with proportional systems. It makes sense: where there are more parties, where every vote counts and where no constituencies are a foregone conclusion, more people bother to vote. What's more, research from professors John Curtice and Pippa Norris shows that those with the least political knowledge are far more likely to vote under proportional systems, up from 38% in first-past-the post systems to 54%.

The ironic thing is that the party that has historically been the most opposed to PR probably has the most to gain from it.

the Conservatives are now at a massive disadvantage under the present system. On these results they are still unlikely to win outright in a general election, but they might if votes were fairly apportioned. As it is, they still have mountains to move in the north and in the cities. They would be wise to start campaigning for PR now while they are ahead, for if Brown does well and Labour surges forward, it will look like a loser's bleat later on.

In fact the irony is intensified when you realise that the only reason they have representation in the Welsh assembly is the PR system, so:

Tories in mainly Labour Wales get the message: they put PR for local elections into their manifesto.

I guess the reason they put it only for local elections is that they know the national party won't wear it (yet). It seems increasingly ridiculous not to have PR more fully. Local elections would be the next logical step.
This vogue for localism has not solved voter antipathy | Guardian daily comment | Guardian Unlimited

Technorati Tags: PR, voting, electoral, UK