For what it's worth, I didn't expect to still be writing about politics today. I expected, along with many others, that there would be a hung parliament, but I had also thought, rather naively, that the parties would have had some sort of plan of what to do next. We've still got a Prime Minister, but we don't yet have a new Government.

All of the seats which took part in the election on Thursday night have now declared, with the final 650th seat - which will almost certainly remain tory - being elected in a few weeks' time. Three days have passed since I cast my vote, and the discussions are still ongoing. I had honestly believed that there would have been a pact or anti-Tory coalition, formed under the banner of a 'progressive alliance', which would have campaigned hard and tried for an immediate change to the electoral system.

The only problem is, under our current electoral system, even though a Lib-Lab coalition would have more seats than the conservatives, they still wouldn't have an overall majority in the Commons, so regardless of constitutional rights and who gets to seek to form a government first, it's perfectly reasonable that the current round of discussions are taking place without the incumbent ruling party.

To be fair to Nick Clegg, he's stuck to his word and has held discussions with the party which gained the largest share of votes and seats. It's refreshing, after all the expenses nonsense and back room deals that go on in politics, to have a leader of a party show some integrity and actually stick to his word.

"But it's the Conservative party," I hear you cry, "and they're not to be trusted!" Perhaps not, but the simple fact of the matter is that this is the first time in the Liberal Democrats' existence that the party has ever had true power - even if it is just a sliver of it - in it's grasp. No matter what the party believes, the simple fact is that unless it's wishes align with the larger, elected body of MPs, there's little chance of much of the Lib Dem manifesto actually manifesting itself in reality - and I hate to keep repeating myself here - under the current electoral system.

Perhaps in a Lib-Con pact, there's even less chance - but perhaps the Conservatives, desperate to form a government and kick Gordon Brown and the Labour party out of office, may make some concessions. It may be the only way that the Liberal Democrats will have any chance of getting their policies any real chance of getting passed, but there's nothing to stop the larger number of Tory MPs simply voting against any policy tabled by their unlikely bedfellows.

Time for Reform?

It's interesting to note that the only things that the Conservatives have offered any public sentiment in terms of a coalition are the policies in which the two parties are already in agreement. Political reform - not electoral reform - is on the Conservative agenda, but they have no plans of supporting proportional representation in any form.

You've heard David Cameron going on about it all through the election. He, and his party, want a strong, focused government; to hell with watered-down, proportional representation - it doesn't work, and he won't be able to get things done!

Except it does work, and you can get things done - it just needs a change in the way government thinks and works. If the electorate wants a strong, majority government, they'll vote for one. If not, they'll get a mixed parliament that actually represents the wishes of the country.

Here's an illustration of the problem (after 649 of 650 seats declared):

The main problem is disparity in the amount of votes cast and the number of seats won. Just look at the percentage difference between votes and seats. 

But think about it: using a system such as the Additional Member System (or Mixed-Member Proportional voting), as used in Germany, New Zealand and even here at home in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the London Assembly, David Cameron would now be our Prime Minister, having secured the largest amount of popular support. The only thing that the larger parties are worried about is their influence reflecting (or, as the case may be, not reflecting) actual popular opinion, as opposed to an out-of-balance seats-versus-votes system, such as FPP.

Other systems are available, such as STV and AV, but these do little to change the outcome we've just had unless changes are made to the constituencies. These changes would result in larger, multi-member constituencies, whereby two or even three MPs were elected in a similar ways to how our councils work. The constituencies would either have no overall control or be majority controlled by a party.

As I've said publicly before, those who seek to block electoral reform are surely those who benefit from it.

Taking Time

Nick Clegg is a smart guy, and I'm sure his advisors are no idiots either, so I'm sure they'll be weighing up just how important this is to them. Even while the Conservatives are publicly suggesting that they want a stable coalition government - which is code for not wanting to call another election for another 4-5 years - they could still call for a general election to take place again in the near future.

Without voting reform, we're stuck with the system that got us here in the first place, and whilst "doing what is right for the country" is a noble cause, if the Lib Dems miss this opportunity to force a referendum on selecting a new, more representational method of choosing who runs our country in the future, then it's nost just a missed opportunity for them to be a party with more influence, but a missed opportunity for this country to get a parliament that actually represents it's electorate.

Here's hoping we get a change - a real change - in the way we vote in time for the next election, which is likely to be months, rather than years away.