Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

My Lords, in a previous existence I used to teach something called social science research methods, which was basically reduced in large part to constructing questionnaires and getting undergraduates to go out and ask people in various ways which way they would vote if there was a general election tomorrow. There never was a general election tomorrow, so the results were always slightly erroneous and had no predictive basis whatsoever. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, says: "““At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons””." Then we get this wonderful sentence: "““It is proposed that the system should be changed””." Let us note the two words ““proposed”” and ““changed””. You are actually sensitising the respondent to the desired response, because everyone accepts on that basis that it is proposed, so it is a good thing: and ““change””, as we know, is a very powerful word—think of Barack Obama. It is a false question in terms of equal balance because you are making clear the direction of the desired response just by using those two words: ““proposed”” and ““changed””. We then get on to the more substantive issue of linking the first past the post system, which is actually undefined, with the alternative vote system. The one thing that we have learnt during the debates and discussions on this is that we do not know whether there is ““the”” alternative vote system. Very different types of systems claim to be the alternative vote system, but there is not one ““the”” alternative vote system. The game is given away in proposed new Clause 3(c), which says: ““a proportional vote system””. What does that mean? Does it mean an absolutely strictly proportional system, such as the system used in Israel where every party’s representation on the Knesset is dependent quite rigorously on the application of a proportional system? This is one of the major reasons why Israel has not been able to move towards a broader Middle East settlement, particularly on the Palestinian issues. If you have a strictly proportional system you will inevitably finish up being in hock to a whole range of minor parties. I am not sure whether that is what is meant by a proportional vote system, but if it is not it has to be specified in the amendment. Does it mean STV? Does it not mean STV? Does it mean strict proportionality? Does it not mean strict proportionality? This amendment as it stands deals totally inadequately with the issues that we face in possibly revising the voting system upon which the House of Commons is elected.