I first became a convert to proportional representation (PR) during the 2001-2005 parliament. I am afraid it was not high moral principle that led me - a former Tory MP - to my new-found belief. I regret to say that it was the realisation - during the dog days of Tory opposition under the leadership of Iain Duncan Smith - that, apart from the dreadful state of the party's standing, the current electoral system
also made a Tory general election victory utterly impossible.
The gains by the Liberal Democrats in 1997 (consolidated in 2001) meant that, as we approached the 2005 election, Britain was clearly in a three-party system. The unique status of the Lib Dems as the anti-Iraq-war party meant that they were destined to maintain and strengthen their position at the expense - in numbers of seats - of both Labour and the Tories. So, I wrote my first piece on the subject of PR in the autumn of 2003, in the Independent, suggesting that the Tory party, more so than even the Lib Dems, needed to contemplate electoral reform in its own self-interest.
I cannot say that I am proud that it was party interest, rather than equity, which led me to a change of heart originally but, shortly after the 2005 election, I shared an all-party platform supporting PR with Robin Cook, just days before he died. However, he also made no apology for putting the arguments to those Labour supporters in the audience in terms of electoral self-interest - even though his belief in electoral reform had always been motivated by higher principles and ideals, based on equity and fairness.
Both of us were exercised by the extraordinary perversities in the result of the 2005 general election thrown up by the first-past-the-post system. To me, it seemed inordinately unfair that Labour, with just over 35 per cent (9.5 million votes), on a turnout of a mere 61 per cent, could still achieve a 67-seat overall majority in the House of Commons. By comparison, John Major, who had secured 42 per cent - more than 14 million votes - had ended up with an overall majority of barely more than 20 seats in parliament in 1992.
However, for Robin Cook, the writing was on the wall for Labour's future electoral prospects unless it embraced PR. He had already observed that, if just a few thousand votes in about 40 constituencies had been cast in a different way, Labour would have been a minority government. While he went on to make the bigger case for reform on the grounds of equity, he needed his own party to understand the fragility of its position under the current system.
Four years later, with Gordon Brown now appearing to suggest that Labour, if re-elected, will hold a referendum on the "alternative vote", it would seem that the party has belatedly recognised some of Cook's arguments - although attempts to impose one particular system, designed specifically to benefit Labour, might be seen as equally unfair.
So far, both main parties have rejected the case for PR on the grounds that it would harm their own interests. Hitherto, when both have been in opposition, they have put up with the blatant unfairness of the present arrangements on the grounds that they are the overwhelming beneficiary when on the winning side. However, the case can be made to both Labour and the Tories that they, as well as the Lib Dems, have a stake in reform.
The latest ComRes poll, published in the Independent, puts the Tories, at 40 per cent, 13 points ahead of Labour, suggesting a Commons majority of 58. Yet, it would take only a small tightening of the vote share for David Cameron to be faced with forming a minority government.
With the growth, not only of the Liberal Democrats, but also Ukip and other smaller parties, our politicians have to face the fact that multiparty politics is here to stay. In such a scenario, the first-past-the-post system is perverse, unfair and increasingly unworkable, but voters are also increasingly frustrated that, for most of them, their votes simply do not count. A Tory in Newcastle or a Labour voter in Chichester has no chance of representation. Small wonder that the electoral turnout has been in decline for the past 15 years.
At some stage - perhaps in six months' time, at the next election - the arithmetical vagaries of our current system could present the longed-for hung parliament that would act as the trigger for electoral reform. However, it would actually be far better for our politicians, collectively, to argue for the principle of "fair votes" before a constitutional upset forces the issue.
At a time when the esteem of parliament - and, consequently, the integrity our democratic process - is already being questioned, restoring the voters' faith in the electoral system through reform should be the first duty of the next Conservative government.
I have no idea which is the best system of PR - I leave that debate for the political anoraks of my profession. What I am sure of is that, in a mature democracy, every vote must count and that government must be by consent. A huge Commons majority for any party, based on a minority of votes and low turnouts, is deeply damaging for democracy.
Michael Brown was a Conservative MP from 1979 to 1997, and is now a political columnist for the Independent
