UK should be cautious about electoral reform

With everything still uncertain in Westminster the clear loser of the 2010 UK election is the electoral system. The Labour Party received the lowest percentage of votes since 1983, yet they still have a chance to hold on to power. The Conservative Party actually has more votes than Labour did in 2005, yet they are facing a hung Parliament and Labour won a majority in 2005. Also the Liberal Democrats have received the largest percentage of support in their history, but they lost seats. Clearly there is something screwy going on here.

Just a few moments ago Gordon Brown made a statement in which he said, among other things, that he is completely committed to holding a referendum on electoral reform. This may be an attempt to carry favour with the Liberal Democrats, but it is also consistent with what he has been saying throughout the campaign. At the same time the Liberal Democrats are likely to demand such a referendum if they are to support a Conservative minority government. So it seems probable that debate on electoral reform is about to move from the back burner in British politics.

But before they throw out the current system, the system that has made the United Kingdom the most stable country in the world for over 200 years, politicians and voters should consider what is good about their system. Change may be needed but would a proportional system be a good fit for the UK? Perhaps a run off or preferential system would fit in better with British institutions? Or maybe an elected House of Lords would provide a needed balance?

There are a number of possibilities and the UK should not run head long into any major changes without careful consideration.