A Committee of MPs will issue its Final Report tomorrow on voter engagement and why many people do not vote. In its Interim Report last November, the Committee dismissed considerable evidence in support of electoral reform in general and the Single Transferable Vote (STV) in particular.
Since then, it has received even more evidence in support of electoral reform and STV.
Will the Committee this time acknowledge the weight of opinion in favour of reform and recommend reform or at least a more detailed consideration of it or will the Committee keep its head in the sand, from where it cannot possibly see the elephant in the room of electoral reform? Why should people vote when they know it makes no difference?
Look out for its report tomorrow!
The electoral reform movement owes a great deal to the 36 witnesses who, in response to the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee’s Interim Report on Voter Engagement, gave written evidence that electoral reform was at least part of the solution. This as especially remarkable because the Committee had studiously avoided asking specifically for views on electoral reform when it invited comments on its Interim Report.
Eighteen of the 36 referred in particular to STV.
The Electoral Reform Society’s first and main object is “To secure the adoption of … STV …” but, sadly, it gave no evidence.
As Kevin Cleary wrote in his evidence, “I can see no point in voting. I know who my MP will be after the next election barring an Act of God or some unexpected scandal.”
Our roll of honour contains the following 18, who suggested STV:
Thomas G F Gray
Dr David Hill
Make Votes Count in West Sussex
Dr James Gilmour
All the written evidence in response to the Interim Report is available at http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/political-and-constitutional-reform-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/proposals-on-voter-engagement/?type=Written#pnlPublicationFilter