However, John Curtice has projected what the result would be based on current polls under an Alternative Vote system. One note of caution: his results do depend on a universal swing calculator so they import all the deficiencies of that (his ‘probable’ outcome in terms of seats based on current polls is too strong a description for me.) But let’s run with the forecast for now (it won’t be as bad as that in my opinion.) Could we really argue for a system that hits one party disproportionately badly and in an unfair way?

This calculation will have to be done after the election given the massive shortcomings of current seat by seat projections. Nonetheless, if an outcome such as John Curtice suggests was the result then AV is dead on arrival.

Anyway, onto tmg.co.uk’s (weighted) seat predictor. Liberal Democrats continued to make gains in support and seats yesterday. Labour are -2 on yesterday and the Lib Dems are +2- Conservatives are 19 seats short of a majority,

It has the following elements:

- Members elected on an AV+ basis using the old European constituencies with a regional top up.
- Elections would be every five years and coincide with European elections.
- No member of the new House of Lords can be a member of the government. If they join the Government they would have to resign their seat.
- A minimum age of 40.
- Parties would commit to selecting candidates on the basis of expertise and to reflect the diversity of the UK.

Why make these changes?

“By having a different source of authority – and timing – this new House of Lords would strengthen Parliament and make it more pluralistic. Adding in electoral reform of the House of Commons – the alternative vote – and the opening out of political parties through the introduction of primaries then the centrifugal nature of our political system begins to be reversed. There would be more counterweight in the system.

Wouldn’t this make social and economic reform more difficult? At times, perhaps, but it would also improve the quality of legislation as Governments would have to operate by consensus. It would also embed institutions that had broad consent beyond the lifetime of a Parliament or a Government. Pluralism, long-termism, consensus, and diversity could be locked into our democratic system.”

Which brings me nicely on to David Cameron’s absolutely barmy intention to introduce a UK Sovereignty Bill (it didn’t really bring me nicely on to this but whatever….) There are two possibilities for the Bill:

- It is meaningless. Therefore it achieves nothing but may simply make the UK look silly. Parliament is already sovereign- we can leave the EU at any time.
- It is meaningful. In which case, we are leaving the European Union. European law supercedes UK law. Any UK law passed which suggests otherwise is incompatible with EU treaties and, therefore, we would have to leave. Potty.

Fraser Nelson writes:

“Mr Cameron’s proposed Sovereignty Bill — declaring the primacy of English law over the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg — will also be meaningless unless it includes the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.”

Er, that is not meaningless I’m afraid. That would mean that the UK is leaving the EU. Quite meaningful, I would say. I’d be interested to hear whether Fraser Nelson has got confirmation that is what the legislation would contain. If it does, then Cameron is committing to the UK going it alone.

Don’t take my word for it. Here is Kenneth Clarke describing such legislation as: “fundamentally incompatible with EU membership.”

All this lets the eurosceptic genie out of the bottle. He is placing himself in a position of fundamental and ongoing conflict with the EU. Where does that end up? It ends up in only one place: a referendum on leaving the EU as he won’t get his own way. Playing with fire Mr Cameron.

Post script: The BBC adds a bit more colour to the story. Pierre Lallouche is simply saying what others are thinking.

Electoral reform in this manner is a good thing because it increases popular sovereignty. Proportional representation is a bad thing for the same reason. It actually diminishes popular sovereignty as it hands power to political elites who distribute the spoils in accordance with an elite bargaining game. Danny Alexander of the Lib Dems laments that the current system is ‘unfair.’ Yes, from the perspective of his party- self-interest always weighs heavily in this debate- it is. But fairness to the Liberal Democrats or the Greens or UKIP or the BNP is not the overriding concern. Popular sovereignty is.

What the expenses scandal has shown is that there is dangerous distance between MPs and their constituents and this is partly caused by the excessive stability of first past the post. If you lose, it is because your party has lost. It is very rarely because of your performance as an MP. This is unacceptable. If AV facilitates more independence amongst MPs then even better. That would be one of the means of increasing the independence of Parliament and holding the executive to account. All these things are a thoroughly good idea. So let’s not have a discussion Prime Minister- these things have been debated in infinite detail. Let’s get on with it for goodness sake.

Now, you’ll notice the BNP creeping into this post above. There is a misconception that electoral reform means that the BNP will find their way into Parliament. I would be surprised if they could get into Parliament needing more than 50 per cent of the vote in any single constituency. In fact, I would say that the safeguards against BNP representation are even greater in AV than in the current system. It is very important to differentiate AV and PR in this debate.

But there is a broader issue here. Yes, the BNP wouldn’t have 2 MEPs if there had not been a system of PR in these European elections. But they wouldn’t had the Labour vote not collapsed either- both staying at home and going to a whole host of other parties. That is a bigger issue which I’ve addressed in my LabourList column which I’ll link to later.

So, AV yes. PR no. And AV will keep the BNP at bay.

First, identify the worst offenders in the expenses scandal and signal a clear end to their parliamentary careers. Second, find a mechanism to re-engage voters in the political process.

So far so good, it had me in thrall. Then it veered wildly off towards advocating proportional representation. This seems to me to completely miss the point. Do PR systems have a better chance of responding to the interests of the voters? My instinct says not. In fact, they can remove power from the voters and hand it to parties. If you know that in a given multi-member seat you are going to get one out of three seats, say, then you can just parachute in a party insider. They are elected. Job done, you’ve got your chunk of support and you’ve got your favoured candidate. Where has there been any real voter engagement? What is forcing that MP to build a deep relationship with those voters? How is that better from the current system?

Moreover, there is no need for representatives to reach beyond their base. Politics could become ossified. Personally, I do favour voting reform but proportionality is just one consideration and not actually the most important one. For me, clarity, directness, and opportunity for change are far more important. For this reason, I have begun to favour the Alternative Vote which meets these criteria and forces representatives to engage with a broader range of viewpoints and voters than is currently the case. It could even create a greater spirit of independence amongst MPs as a result which is welcome.

The opposite could be true with a PR system other than at a national coalition-building level with is about elite bargaining rather than direct engagement of voters in the political process.

No, I think the calls for PR in terms of answering this particular political crisis- a chasm between voters and those who represent them- miss the point. I am happy to be convinced but it has the feel of a red herring. As I argued in my LabourList column earlier this week the direct measures that are now needed are: open primaries with strictly limited expenditure, a greater separation of the executive and parliament, a different culture of engagement with voters, and, yes, some electoral reform but only insofar as it puts MPs under greater not less democratic scrutiny. There is also a discussion to be had about party funding but I’m not in favour of state funding which seems to be off the table now- rightly.

One final point, the most spectacular democratic revival we have seen recently is across the Atlantic Ocean. It was in a first past the post system with primaries. It was spontaneous and happened as a result of the inspiration of a small number of people rather than ponderous, worthy and often self-serving discussion of constitutional reform. Obama ’08 was a hostile takeover of the Democratic party and the American political process. Who is ready to do the same in Britain?

Post script: I found David Cameron’s performance on The Andrew Marr Show this morning excruciatingly embarrassing. The Tories are clearly spooked by UKIP and they were the real target of his comments. Change? I didn’t hear a single thing that suggested that he grasps the current situation. He is at sea.

Post script 2: Sunder Katwala makes the case for electoral reform over at Next Left. I suspect that he would go further than my suggestions above. Electoral reform, yes, but proportional representation- especially multi-member constituencies- a no for me.

There is only one good reason to change our system of voting. That is democratic engagement. Political engagement is weak in the UK and is getting weaker. Local organisations of all the parties are failing to motivate voters to either vote or participate in the democratic process. That harms politics: it makes political decisions seem remote and imposed and that further feeds disillusionment. Politics is something that is done to people rather than done with them.

I have always been sceptical about electoral reform- I never bought the arguments about ‘fairness’ and I do still have concerns about handing disproportionate power to minority parties in Government (that can happen in the current system of course and is more likely to when you have a third party with 50 seats or more as the Lib Dems currently do.) But the gains to be had from an electoral system that forces parties to engage locally with 70% or 80% of the electorate rather than 45%-50% are considerable and parties that fail to widen their appeal will face electoral defeat. So I am in favour of the Alternative Vote system for Westminster elections because the democratic benefits could be considerable and the risks are not monumentally greater than the current system.

But compulsory voting is another matter. The ‘liberal’ objection, that to force people to express an opinion is wrong doesn’t quite fly. We force people to do all sorts of things (including registering to vote, for example) when there is an overriding community benefit. But voting rates have been declining, give or take, for a considerable period of time. It is something that politicians, local or national, should be deeply concerned about. Compulsory voting would mask this fact and therefore would allow politicians to feel that they were engaging competently when the opposite could well be true. That would only further feed disillusionment. If you want to really anger people then introduce state funding for political parties at the same time…

So the Alternative Vote could improve democratic engagement and compulsory voting could harm it. I am for the former and against the latter.

Post script: How would the parties benefit from change? Labour would benefit most from compulsory voting (its voters have a lower propensity to vote.) In the current context, Labour would also benefit to a certain extent from electoral reform in terms of seats won (though coalition politics would probably then determine whether it was in or out of power.)

It is worth seeing some research from a year ago about the second preferences of Liberal Democrat voters.

Conservatives on balance would favour the status quo. Liberal Democrats have much to gain from any type of proportional voting system. Compulsory voting is neither here nor there for them. I bet on the basis of this analysis, you can predict how each of the parties’ will vote on the overall package…..the question is whether the Conservatives can prevent the changes coming in before the next election by crying foul at a Government changing the rules of the game…..It will be a brave short term political decision for the Government to try to force these changes through in time for the next election.