Sam Ghibaldan: Call it a democracy? Here's why Britain needs electoral reform

NOW that the political parties are in full pre-election mode, they should be asked a question: just who is it that they're talking to? The odds are, it isn't you.

We'd like to think we live in a democracy, where governments are elected with popular support. But that is piffle. In every election since the war, most people have voted against the victorious party. Even Labour's 1997 landslide was secured with just 43 per cent of votes. Labour gained a 66-seat majority in 2005 despite having only 35 per cent of votes.

This week, Gordon Brown hinted he supported a new electoral system, the alternative vote. Arguably, that would be an improvement on the first-past-the-post system (FPTP), as at least MPs would be chosen by a majority of voters in their constituencies. But the Prime Minister opposes the only type of system – proportional representation (PR) – that would ensure voters' choices determined the political make-up of parliament.

Though politicians talk about representing the country in election campaigns, they focus on swing voters, those whose vote can easily be swayed. In reality, under FPTP the parties target an even smaller group that that: swing voters in marginal seats, those likely to change hands between the parties.

These tiny numbers of voters are whom the parties are talking to; they determine election results. In 2005, fewer than 10 per cent of seats were marginal. Swing voters in them were estimated to number just 850,000 voters, only 2 per cent of the electorate. Yet analysts believed as much as two-thirds of the parties' expenditure was used to attract their support.

In the electoral battle, money counts. Parties avoid election spending rules by employing workers in marginal seats years before the formal campaign starts. The more a party spends, the greater chance it has of victory.

This financial need is behind Labour's love-hate relationship with the trade unions, its traditional funders, and the Tories' wooing of business. That money secures influence. Two of the biggest Tory donors – hedge-fund boss Stanley Finks and Belize businessman Lord Ashcroft – have leading party roles and could have positions in a Tory government.

The Electoral Commission is investigating the legitimacy of Ashcroft's company's donations to the Tories. Recently, Labour has urged the commission to report its findings before the election, underlining the impact it fears this money could have.

Put all this together – the tiny number of people determining an election's outcome, the influence wielded by a small number of financial donors and the majority of people voting against the victorious party – and UK elections don't look very democratic.

Britain's political system is little more than an insult to voters. It wasn't designed; instead, it has evolved, allowing those in power to shape it in their own interests.

Opposition to PR is really political laziness. It would force political culture to change. Politicians from different parties would have to work together. Many politicians see that as an onerous challenge. With FPTP, the Tories and Labour know they'll get a turn in government at some point; why step out of their comfort zone? After all, it's only voters' views that they're ignoring.

The excuse of the two largest parties is that PR leads to unstable government. That is rubbish. We know from the Scottish Parliament – and the Welsh and Irish assemblies – that PR provides stability if politicians actually work in our interests rather than their own. If Brown were a serious political reformer he would begin at the problem's root, the electoral system that selects governments in defiance of popular opinion.

Surely it is time people cast their votes knowing they would count.