经济学人下载:英国剧变,英国正在宪法剧变的边缘

The May 5th vote on electoral rules will be Britain’s first national referendum since 1975 (on joining Europe). Outside the Westminster village, few voters would have chosen arcane electoral reform as the subject for such a poll. A survey conducted on April 15th-17th by ICM, a pollster, found only 50% promising to vote (dropping to 44% in areas like London, where there are no other elections on May 5th). Campaigners expect actual turnout to be still lower.

5月5日对选举制度的投票是英国1975年（就加入欧盟）后的第一次全国性的公民投票。在西敏寺外，几位投票人选择神秘难懂的选举改革作为投票的主题。国际数学家大会(ICM，民调机构) 4月15-17日进行的调查显示，只有50%的人表示一定会参加投票（在诸如伦敦等5月5日无其他选举的地区降至44%）。活动发起人认为实际的数字还会更低。

Among the professional political classes, constitutional activism has been spurred by a growing sense that FPTP is unfair. As an electoral system, it offers ideological clarity and accountability, but it is not very representative, giving nothing to losers even with substantial support. This failing was less grating when only two parties contested most seats. In 1951 almost 97% of those voting supported Labour or the Conservatives; in 2010 only 65% did (see chart 1). In parallel, the splintering of the vote has led to a sharp rise in the number of MPs elected by a minority of votes cast in their seat: from a few dozen a half century ago to 433 out of 650 MPs last year. At the 2010 election in Norwich South—a three-way marginal where the Greens polled well in fourth place—the Lib Dems won with just 29.4% of the vote.

在政治圈内部，部分人愈发感到FPTP的不公，因而支持宪法改革。虽然FPTP选举体系清晰明确、易于计数，但是不具有高度代表性，失败者即使获得了大量的支持者也会变得一无所有。这在只有两大政党占据大多数席位时还没有那么恼人。1951年工党和保守党包揽近98%的选票，2010年却只有65%（见表1）。相形之下，选票的分裂使得有少数人选举的国会议员比例大幅上升：从半个世纪前的650个席位中占几十位上升去年为占433位。2010年在诺维奇南部的选举——三个大党得票相当，绿党排在第四位得票也不错——自民党只得到了29.4%的选票。

It is commonly said that the current system is tough on smaller parties like the Lib Dems, but that is not quite right: some very small, ultra-regional parties thrive on it, for instance in Northern Ireland. But FPTP is brutal to parties with diffuse geographical support. The Tories in Scotland won about one in six votes at the last general election, but got just one of 59 Scottish seats at Westminster. It is the same for Labour in southern England; it polled lots of home counties votes but holds just ten of 197 seats outside London. FPTP hurts the Lib Dems and smaller parties—such as the Greens or the extreme-right British National Party—all over the country.

坊间一般认为现行选举体制对于如自民党这样较小的政党很不利，这种说法也不全对：一些非常小、但高度地区化的政党在这种制度下红红火火，比如在北爱尔兰。但是FPTP对于支持者地理上很分散的政党非常严峻。上轮大选中托利党在苏格兰得到六分之一的选票，但在代表苏格兰的59个议会席位中只得到1个席位。工党在英格兰南部的遭遇也是如此：得到大量伦敦周边地区的选票，但只在197个席位中取得10个席位。FPTP在全国范围都伤害了自民党和其他小党派（如绿党和极右的英国国家党）的利益。

Yet politicians are quite capable of ignoring even glaringly unfinished business if it suits them. The key explanation for the current frenzy of political reform is the existence of Britain’s first full coalition government since the second world war.

然而政客们只要愿意就能无视这些极为显眼的未竟的事业。对现在政治的狂热改革最好的解释就是英国继二战后第一个完全联合政府的存在。