经济学人下载:英国剧变,英国正在宪法剧变的边缘

Just as important, FPTP is a winner-takes-all system, emphasising the clash of competing ideas as parties seek to become the most successful on the ballot. Under AV, candidates must seek instead to secure the broadest possible support. At a Yes campaign event in Dorset on April 11th, speakers vowed that divisive policies like Thatcher-era privatisations or the invasion of Iraq could never happen under AV.

同等重要的是，FPTP是个赢家通吃的机制，在政党寻求在选举中胜出时强调不同理念的竞争。采用AV，候选人必须争取可能得到的最多的支持，而不是仅仅确保获得支持。4月11日在多赛特的投票中，发言人郑重声明在AV下，像撒切尔时代的私有化或侵略伊拉克那样政治分裂事件决不会发生。

In short, the voting system chosen on May 5th will dictate the nature of British democracy. No great public tumult of ideas called this moment of change into being. Rather, the spark came from the accidental radicalism of the British electorate who were ready to be rid of one big party, Labour, at the last election, but not ready to entrust majority rule to another, the Conservatives. In their indecision and anger at politics as usual, voters called into life something alien and unexpected: a British coalition government, with a confused, only half-understood mandate to fix the political system. The British are now living through the next step of that revolution-by-accident. They will be living with the constitutional consequences for many years to come.

简而言之，5月5日选出的投票机制将会对英国民主的本质起决定性的作用。广大公众意见的混乱并不会带来现在的改革。改革的诱因是英国选民偶然的激进主义，选民们在上次大选即做好准备摆脱最大党派工党，但是并没有准备好接纳另一大党保守党。在他们对政治一如既往的迟疑和愤怒中，投票人呼吁一些外来的、从未想到的体系——英国联合政府——企图以迷惑的、一知半解的授权来修复政治体系。英国人现在正在经受那次偶然性改革的后果，并将在未来很多年忍受宪法改革的后果。