Christopher Huhne makes a very odd argument:
The reason for the
change since the great campaigns of 1905-6 and 1945 is simple: when
working-class people formed a large majority of the electorate, their
concerns were those of any political party that wanted majority
support. Any social advance that proved popular was rapidly accepted by
all parties; even the most reactionary Conservative party did not dare
roll back new economic and social rights.
But
these days the excluded are a minority of an increasingly affluent
society whose concerns have moved on. Our electoral system is excellent
at encapsulating the desires of the average voter, but not those of
minorities. As the poor have become a minority, our electoral system
under-represents them as surely as it under-represents black or gay
people. It has become a threat to social cohesion.
Umm, this seems to run as follows. When the poor were a majority a first past the post electoral system was great, becuase it meant that the poor were courted and listened to. The middle class, being the minorty, should not be courted in the same way.
Now that the middle class are the majority there is something wrong with first past the post and we should be listening to and courting the minority?
There may well be arguments in favour of alternative voting systems but I don’t find this one all that powerful.
Leave a Reply