Gordon Brown has told the Guardian that he would welcome a wider debate on the issue of electoral reform. This was one of new Labour’s manifesto pledges in 1997 which was kicked into the long grass once they were in office and most likely to be re-elected under the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Alan Thornett reports.

Brown was commenting on the publication of the report of the Power Commission Inquiry into Britain’s undemocratic voting procedures which has called for a shake up of the current system to prevent what it fears will be a meltdown in Britain’s system of representation.

The current way of doing things, the Commission says, “is killing politics” in Britain.

The Commission is right. Diminishing turnouts at elections are at least partially the result of this. In Westminster elections most people’s votes don’t count (other than in marginal constituencies).

And the outcome of the election is grossly undemocratic with the number of seats in Parliament for the various parties baring little relation to the votes cast for those parties.

According to the Electoral Reform Society in the general election last year 19 million people cast ineffective votes, i.e. 70 per cent of those who voted. Most of these are the same people every time: Tory voters in strong Labour seats or vice-versa.

It is worth remembering that in that election Labour only managed 35.2 per cent of the votes cast but were rewarded with 55.1 per cent of the seats in Parliament.

The Tories got 30.7 per cent of the vote and 32.3 per cent of the seats. The Lib Dems got 22.1 per cent of the vote and only 9.6 per cent of the seats.

Put another way it took 26,000 votes to elect a Labour MP, 44,000 to elect a Tory MP, and a huge 96,000 to elect a Lib Dem MP – nearly four times as many needed by Labour. Such a system is indefensible.

And even that does not give the full picture. Labour polled 35 per cent of those who voted but they only polled 25 per cent of those registered to vote (given the 61 per cent turnout) and even less of those eligible to vote – under 20 per cent.

This means that they were given an overall Parliamentary majority of 66 with less than one in five of the electorate voting for them. No wonder people are cynical.

The effects of this system on small parties is such that it is almost impossible for them to win a Westminster seat.

Respect’s victory in Bethnal Green and Bow was exceptional. The Greens, who have been a significant force in British politics for thirty years, have never won a Westminster seat.

The Communist Party MPs in 1945 had the mass respect for the Soviet war effort behind them before the cold war kicked in properly.

Despite Brown’s comments the chances of new Labour seriously reopening this issue, without strong pressure for them to do so, is slim indeed. FPTP is a system designed to create a two party system and both main parties are wedded to it.

That is why the Tories don’t complain when it works against them because they know that the time will come when it will work to their advantage.

New Labour might consider some of the other important but less central parts of the Power Commissions recommendations, like votes at 16 or changes to the unelected House of Lords.

But FPTP for Westminster is now so central to the political system in Britain that the whole edifice of current party politics would fall apart if it were changed.

It is the glue which holds the whole mess together.

Respect would do well to give greater priority to campaigning for a fair voting system. A change to this system for Westminster would open up new opportunities for building a real alternative to the left of Labour in England.

Even flawed proportional systems have opened up the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the London Assembly and the European Parliament to deputies from left parties.

Now in Scotland, as a result of a decision of the Scottish Parliament, the local elections in May will be for the first time under a proportional system. This is an important step in the right direction.

In England and Wales, however, the local elections in May are to be conducted once again under FPTP with no change to this in sight despite the recommendations of the Power Commission, which has no constitutional authority.

True it is not as hard to get elected to local Government under FPTP as it is to Westminster mainly because with a lower turn-out a strong campaign can make a bigger impact.

The point, however, is to push up the turnout as well as having a voting system which distributes seats proportionally to votes received.

Respect has always been in favour of electoral reform and fair voting systems, but like the rest of the left it has never campaigned on the issue particularly between elections. This needs to change.

A party with less than 50 per cent of the vote should not be able to govern in its own right.

The full scandal of the FTP voting systems needs to be fully and routinely exposed and the arguments against it strengthened if the left is going to make the impact at the electoral level which it needs to make in this period.

The arguments of the supporters of FPTP make no sense and need to be systematically exposed.

Some argue that it is necessary to avoid coalition governments. But the only democratic way to avoid coalition government is to gain an overall majority at the ballot box, not give one of the two main parties large swathes of representation it did not win.

Others argue that it is necessary to keep the connection between the MP and his or her constituency.

But that is better done through a proportional system and not by what is effectively the gerrymandering of the election to create a connection based an unfair system.

Yet others argue that it is necessary in order to keep the BNP out. This is an even worse argument. The way to beat the BNP is by confronting their politics and defeating them not rigging the election against small parties.

Giving the small parties their full representation in the current circumstances would lift the level of debate from the lowest common denominator imposed by the main parties and make it hard for the far right to survive.