I would reply that this is the system passed by Parliament: that, in particular, the House of Commons agreed on the system, as we did—if that is what has happened—and that is why we have the choice of AV. As to why we have AV above the other systems, no doubt we will get to that in other debates. Of course, AV is the one that preserves best the link between elected Member and constituency.
Another issue is that the wording in the amendment could influence voters, as it says: "““It is proposed that the system should be changed””."
The Government are neutral on which voting system should be used, and that statement could be misleading.
In these amendments there is not even an indication of the kind of proportional voting system that the public would get if they voted for this option or of how this type of system would work. One attraction of the approach taken in the Bill is that for all the arguments there might be about how AV works, the Bill sets that out in Clause 9 and in Schedule 10. Any questions about how AV works can be resolved by looking at the Bill, which would not be the case with these amendments. The results might be a lack of clarity and voter confusion.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Strathclyde
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 December 2010.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
723 c83 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:59:26 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_689673
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_689673
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_689673