Apart from the turmoil in Iran, few issues have dominated the headlines in the way that the prolonged outcry over the misuse of parliamentary allowances has. Understandable then, that both prominent backbenchers and the heads of both major parties have attempted to regain the initiative by proposing various measures to reform parliament, change the voting system, devolve power to local government and even promote direct democracy. The argument goes that the British political system, based on first past the post and a strong central government, has created a class of powerless parliamentarians who are also insulated by large majorities. Rather than spending their time holding Central Government to account, backbenchers have turned their hand to gaming the system instead.

Some of these arguments have some superficial plausibility. Analysts Mark Thompson and Andrew Hilton have found that MP’s in safer seats are more likely to have been of involved in the expenses scandal; whilst only one tenth of members in the most marginal seats have been implicated, one-third of those in the safest seats are in trouble. Yet this fails to explain why several senior ministers and members of the shadow cabinet, who were in, or close to, the corridors of power, have also been caught in the probe.

Far from being paragons of virtue and honesty, parliaments of countries that employ proportional representation have produced moments of corruption and cronyism. Whatever one thinks about Peter Viggers’s duck ponds, or the viewing habits of Jacqui Smith’s husband, neither of them have been denounced for “consorting with minors” or have been accused of rape, like Italian leader Silvio Berlusconi and former Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Katsav respectively. Berlusconi and Kastav may be extreme cases, but the gridlock and endless coalitions produced by proportional representation is not conducive to honest governance. Closer to home, the Scottish Parliament, its members elected by a hybrid electoral system, has been dogged by its own scandals.

The experience of America should also give constitutional reformers pause for thought. Although occasionally willing to correct some of the most egregious mistakes made by the White House, Congress has more often used its constitutional position to subordinate national interests to special pleading and parochial concerns. At a local level, the Governments of many American areas and municipalities have experienced prolonged periods of corruption and scandal. California’s experiment with direct democracy, in the form of recall elections and regular referenda, has brought the world’s fifth largest economy to the brink of bankruptcy as voters, faced with the ability to demand both tax cuts and spending increases have opted for both.

Therefore although constitutional reform seems enticing such reforms would be ill-advised. Any politician who supports them in order to provide a distraction from the continuing controversy over expenses is not just being disingenuous but is also sacrificing the long-term health of British democracy for some short-term headlines. Whatever the faults of the current system, the ballot box and the “electric light” of the press, rather than gimmicks or grand schemes, remain the most effective check on individual’s hubris.