Our electoral system is banana-republic biased against the Tories. In this election, a further 2 per cent swing would have meant they got more votes than Labour; yet Labour would still have had 100-plus more seats and an overall majority. Some Tories have recognised this, but are under the illusion that it could be fixed if the Boundary Commission did more to equalise seat size. This is rubbish. The main cause is that turnover is lower in Labour seats than in Tory seats; so Labour needs fewer votes per seat. Hence Labour got 55.1 per cent of seats on 35.2 per cent of the vote and the Tories 30.5 per cent on 32.3 per cent. Yet we hear no cry of "foul" from the Tories.

This is historically strange, for once the Tories were stronger for electoral reform than Labour. In the 1980s, some seven Tories of cabinet rank and some 60 Tory MPs supported the Conservative Campaign for Electoral Reform. They thought it would lead to lower majorities for Margaret Thatcher, who herself was elected in 1979 with "only" 43.9 per cent of the vote, and thus more inclusive government. Yet today, when Tony Blair enjoys a big majority with barely one third of the vote, they remain silent. First-past-the-post has become an article of faith for the Tories.

For the Tory right, this seems to reflect two beliefs. First, in order to push through radical right reforms, the Tories must have an overall majority. Second, they hope to achieve such a majority by continuing the core-vote policy of this election; one more heave could get them there. Here there is an analogy with the Benn wing of the Labour Party in the 1980s, which hoped that, with the Social Democrats taking Tory votes, Labour could sneak in as a socialist government with no more than a third of the vote.

That is a frankly immoral strategy, which shows contempt for democracy. But lest that prove not to be the kind of argument the modern Tory party finds compelling, there is another conclusive one: for the Tories today it would not work. For they (unlike Mr Benn) cannot hope to get an overall majority with 33, 35 or 37 per cent of the vote. The electoral bias against them sees to that. Indeed, it is hard to construct a scenario for an overall Tory majority which does not require them to get 42-43 per cent of the vote - that is to say, one extra vote for every three they polled on 5 May.

More curious, however, is the resistance to reform of the Notting Hillers, the One-Nationers, Tory liberals as they would once have been happy to be called. Stephen Dorrell, the former Health Secretary, argued their case on the Today programme on 7 May, and bizarre it was too.

Mr Dorrell clearly does not understand the electoral system. Otherwise he would not have claimed that the party with most votes wins. It does not; and quite likely at an election soon it will not. But besides that, he seemed to think that electoral reform would stop the Tories reaching out for the middle ground. They would prefer to remain in their comfort zone, existing vote share, existing number of seats; and look to gain power through a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

This is crooked thinking. The one certain gainer from any electoral reform would be the Liberal Democrats. Where a reformed electoral system did not give any party an overall majority, they would have to decide with whom to form a coalition.

If the Tories were to have any chance of joining up with the Lib Dems, they would have to change. The Liberal Democrats could never form a government with a party which flirted with racism, as the Tories did in this election; or which was fundamentally anti-European; or which was socially exclusive; or was out to privatise the welfare state. Electoral reform would not enable the Tories to just cultivate their core vote. It would force them, if they wanted a chance of government, to move out to the middle ground.

For the Tories, this election presents an opportunity. Labour is havering about electoral reform. It may opt for preferential voting in constituencies, which does nothing for proportionality or fairness. The Tories therefore have a great chance to take their ground, by going for full electoral reform.

Should they? Certainly. Will they? Probably not. This would be a mistake from the point of view of their own self interest; and a tragedy for all those who want to make Britain an exemplar of democracy once again.