Tomorrow, on May 5, something unprecedented is happening in the UK. For the British citizens, it is their chance to vote in a referendum on the voting system used to elect MPs to the House of Commons. The question is straight and simple: "At present, the UK uses the 'first past the post' system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the 'alternative vote' system be used instead?"

But why was this referendum required? Why a change in the system? To understand all this, let's get back to basics and a bit of history.

For Westminster elections (yes, this is what they call their election model and we Indians go by the same model), it's first past the post, means the candidate who gains maximum votes in their constituency is elected as the MP. The party which fetches the majority – the maximum number of MPs – forms the government. If no party gets an overall majority, the outcome is a hung parliament where two or more parties come together forming an alliance or coalition government. In this system, people get a single vote to choose their representative from their constituency.

In 2010, the general elections in the UK resulted in a hung parliament, the first since 1974, leading to a period of negotiations. The Conservative party (popularly known as Tories) registered most votes and seats but not enough to form a government. The Labour came second. A third party, of liberal democrats or LibDems, emerged on the scene with 23 percent votes in their hand. Now this party was to be the 'game changer'.

As far back as anyone can recall, LibDems have always voiced their concern about the prevailing voting system. They see it as unfair and discriminatory against smaller parties. They blame the ‘first past the post’ system for encouraging the ‘two party’ system by reducing the number of viable political parties to a greater extent. This is so because larger parties get a disproportionately large share of seats as compered to their vote share where as smaller parties get much less number of seats as compared to their vote share.

. So, they wanted an alternative system, the system of ‘single transferable vote’ (STV). They say this will give people “the choice between candidates as well as parties”.

Now, STV works on a preference system and essentially needs well educated and concerned people. Instead of marking an X against just one candidate, the voter puts numbers (as 1, 2, 3) as their preferred choices. The votes needed are termed ‘quota’. If a candidate meets the quota or exceeds it, he or she is elected, and the excess votes are proportionately distributed among the other candidates. They enter into the second round and the least gainer among them is eliminated. These transfers and eliminations continue until the number of candidates meeting the quota is the same as the number of seats to be filled.

Coming back to the situation of a hung parliament, as a solution, the Tories entered into a coalition with LibDems on the promise of having a referendum on the alternative vote as part of a ‘final offer’ in the Conservatives' negotiations for a proposed ‘full and proper’ coalition between the two parties. This referendum is result of that promise only.

Again, the alternative vote (AV) system is something different which was promised to LibDems who supported and demanded STV. So, how they settled for the AV system and how is AV different from STV?

In theory, AV sees voters rank candidates in order of preference and anyone getting more than 50 percent in the first round is elected. If that does not happen, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second choices allocated to the remaining candidates. This process continues until the winner emerges. Although AV does not provide for proportional representation and parties could still form government with less than 50 percent votes, LibDems see AV as fairer than the current system and a step forward. They argue that this system at least represents the will of the people, and that they were always for “fair votes”.

Though the Tories agreed to a referendum, most of them are part of an open “no” campaign. They feel changes to the electoral system could lead to permanent coalitions. They argue that the system will in effect deliver a second vote to supporters of dangerous fringe elements such as British National Party. Others say that AV would be a disaster for the Tories as they haven’t polled anywhere near 40 percent of the national vote since 1992. David Cameroon, their leader and the prime minister, has till now kept himself away from the “no” campaign.

Labour leader Ed Miliband is supporting the “yes” campaign for changing the electoral system. But Labour MPs are split in two camps with more than 100 of them opposing such a change. This time, Labours can be the ‘game changers’.

The LibDems are pushing strongly for a “yes” vote, which is obvious as they had long called for an overhaul of the electoral system saying that too many votes simply do not count and smaller parties are penalised. However, LibDem leader and deputy prime minister Nick Clegg has said that a ‘no’ outcome will not affect the coalition.

Other smaller parties too support the AV system, including the last-time gainers Scottish Nationals, Plaid Cymru, Democratic Unionist Party and the Greens, as they see it as something in their support. Various opinion polls on the issue show that there are more people opposing the change (39-41 percent) than those supporting it (35-38 percent), but the fact is that the margin of defeat won’t be big, and the “don’t know” section may change their vote to a ‘yes’.

The larger point here is that a ‘yes’ vote would mean the end of an electoral system that has existed since the 17th century. It would probably signal a wider change in the electoral culture by making more seats more competitive. It would mean more competitive MPs will have to work harder in their constituencies and also work harder for votes.

As far as India is concerned, the question is: Do we Indians, who follow the Westminster model that is facing criticism and a possible change, still love the FPTP so much that we can’t even explore alternatives? As a learning citizen, I don’t find any difference in our situation when it comes to the ‘copied’ system of ours with that of Westminster. We have the same problem of representation as the proportion of votes and seats gained for a party are not always in tandem. We have the same problem of wasted votes due to multi-cornered elections and we have the same concern about smaller parties.

I am not saying that what Britain is doing is absolutely correct and that we should imitate them here too. Remember, the referendum is on Thursday and anything can come out after the counting on Friday. Regardless of the result, they have taken a step forward. We Indians are standing still! The least we can do is to learn something from our former rulers whom we copy, and copy again though with a difference.

Let’s start debating.