Nick Clegg is the candidate of change (Guardian/Observer UK)

[IndianaGreen]

Nick Clegg is the candidate of change

The Liberal Democrats offer a prospect of renewal which has been denied them by a grossly unfair voting system

Observer Editorial
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 1 May 2010 19.01 BST

The rotten parliament is dissolved; this week a new one will be elected. Scores of incumbents who fiddled their expenses will be evicted. Many who did not are standing down anyway, too defeated by the public's loathing of politicians to face the campaign trail.

So change is inevitable. Parliament will be full of novice MPs. It might also, if current opinion polls are borne out, be hung.

The Conservatives have spent much energy campaigning against that outcome. They have publicised their irritation that voters could deprive David Cameron of a majority much better than they have explained why he deserves one in the first place.

Mr Cameron warns portentously that a coalition might lead to instability, economic jeopardy and "more of the old politics". Perversely, he also rejects the need to change the current voting system, which has, he says, the merit of delivering clear results. Except this time it might not. What then? Mr Cameron's view is that the system would work fine, if only everyone voted Conservative. This is sophistry draped in hypocrisy. He backs first past the post, while agitating against one of the outcomes that is hard-wired into it. He is campaigning against the voters instead of pitching for their support. He defines change in politics as the old system preserved – but run by the Tories.

The expenses scandal signalled the need for more radical reform. This newspaper has consistently argued that the most effective change would be to introduce a fairer voting system. The current model contains a huge bias towards Labour and the Conservatives, giving them hundreds of safe seats where MPs can complacently ignore voters. Parties then divert money and skew policy towards a handful of tactically important constituencies. Awarding seats in parliament in proportion to votes cast would extend the franchise to millions of people who feel their voices have gone unheard. Deep unfairness radiates out of our voting system and corrupts our politics. This can only be fixed with electoral reform.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/01/liberal-democrats-endorsement-observer

[salguine]

1. God, if Clegg won, that would be so absolutely super bloody smashing, what!

[IndianaGreen]

2. The criticism of the British election system also apply to ours in the USA, perhaps more so!

The current model contains a huge bias towards Labour and the Conservatives, giving them hundreds of safe seats where MPs can complacently ignore voters. Parties then divert money and skew policy towards a handful of tactically important constituencies.

This could easily be said about Republicans and Democrats and, unlike the British Parliament, they colluded in freezing the numbers of seats in the House that resulted in increasing the ratio of constituencies to their elected representatives, or IOW, it diluted the influence of voters (particularly those of modest economic means).