AV 'WOULD PRIVILEGE EXTREMISTS'

Bill Myers of Leicester has this letter in the London Review of Books (scroll down from here):

Whatever Ross McKibbin may say, opponents of AV are not ‘cave dwellers’ (LRB, 18 November), AV maximises the votes of extremist candidates, since anyone voting for them knows their second preference votes will still count, while the second preference votes of the last candidate to be eliminated have no impact on the result, though as many as 40 per cent of the votes may be affected. In constituencies where the Labour and Lib Dem candidates are the leading contenders, for example, only the second preferences of Conservative, UKIP and BNP supporters will matter. It is possible, however, that if their own candidate is defeated, Labour voters would prefer to be represented by an ‘honest-to-God’ Tory than a ‘pragmatic’ Lib Dem. The second preference votes of the last candidate to be eliminated should take precedence over those of the least successful candidates. Under the standard counting procedure, AV is demonstrably less democratic than first past the post.

A DECISIVE MOMENT FOR PR

Trevor Fisher, Chartist blog, 11 November 2010

THE FUTURE OF THE PR CAMP
The alternative vote vote on 5 May next, if the bill currently in the Lords is not modified, will be a decisive moment for the proportional representation camp. It could end the hopes of PR and democratic renewal for a decade, possibly for a generation. The bill deliberately polarises debate for or against AV and links AV to gerrymandering constituency boundaries.

The bill as it left the Commons specified that “the next general election [is] to be held on the AV system, provided this change is endorsed in a referendum on 5 May 2011 and boundary changes have been made to reduce the size of the House of Commons to 600”. The boundary changes could fall if the vote is lost, but do not have to. However, the converse is the case: a “yes” vote will empower the gerrymander.

The big issue is however the AV proposition. The opponents of change have a simple position: vote “no”. The “yes” lobby seeks to win support by implying that AV will be a springboard to PR. Nothing is less likely. The next election would be held on AV and once a government is elected by AV it would oppose a move which would threaten its own legitimacy. The opponents of change would oppose any further reforms, and both sides would block further change. Like the Chartists in 1836, the PR camp will find itself blocked by both the Whigs And the Tories.

In effect, a “yes” vote offers nothing to the PR lobby. This is why David Cameron and his supporters can back AV. It changes little, empowers them, and gives nothing to reform – key issues such as the power of the executive are not on the agenda. Indeed, reducing the total of MPs makes scrutiny of the executive more difficult. Which is what the Orange-Blue coalition wants.

THE CURRENT OPTIONS
The Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties are currently backing a “yes” vote, Labour and the Lib Dems to back their leaders (Gordon Brown invented the position, Ed Miliband had to endorse it, and Nick Clegg is leading the charge for the coalition) though both parties are split. Many Labourites are opposed to any change – for example Andy Burnham – while supporters of PR in both parties cannot but hold their tongues. The Greens seem to think they will gain, though the advantage to small parties in AV is marginal. It is a change which keeps the status quo in essentials.

The Tories are opposed, and Cameron has stated in the past he will vote “no”. He is, however, in a win-win position, and his political skills are dangerously impressive. He really cannot lose whatever happens.

PR is effectively ruled out if the “yes” lobby secures a vote in favour, and PR supporters have to consider a “no” vote. There is no issue of principle involved in voting “no”. There is no proposition in favour of change per se on the ballot paper, only a “yes”/”no” vote on AV. If the government had allowed a vote in principle then a vote on options, it would be a different situation. This was never seriously considered.

The only option is therefore AV, and the issue is whether the triumph of AV would have any benefits for the PR lobby and democratic renewal. I would argue it would not. Once AV is in, it will be in for at least 10 years (if the five-year fixed parliament bill goes through).

The yes lobby argues this is now or never. If AV is defeated, reform is off the agenda. But this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If all the eggs are put in this basket and the vote is lost, the status quo brigade will argue forever the country does not want change. This has to be challenged.

PREDICTING THE OUTCOME
Currently opinion poll and newspaper loyalties are unclear. Some, including Kevin Maguire of the Mirror, think the vote will be lost. Certainly by May the coalition should be unpopular, and Clegg who leads the charge has seen his party’s poll position drop to 9%. For him defeat would be damaging – but not for Cameron. The Lib Dems have to back him. But a strong voice for PR would put his party under stress. It is difficult to see how a campaign led by Clegg could be popular.

How Labour will face up is unreadable. No one wants to damage Miliband. But if the outcome looks to be a defeat, how can Burnham and friends – or Ken Livingstone and the PR lobby – hold the line? It is imponderable, but one thing is clear. There is no automatic progressive support for the uneasy half measure that is AV.

AVOIDING UNNECESSARY COMMITMENTS
If the PR camp can make a “no” vote a way to keep further reform alive, then PR might survive. At the present, the pressure is to avoid splitting the front and giving the Tory status quo camp advantages. If, as the vote nears, it is clear it will be lost, other options will open up. The PR camp needs to keep its powder dry. There is no case at this stage for supporters of PR to do anything but keep their options open.

Cross-posted from Chartist

RENTOUL GETS IT ... FOR THE OTHER SIDE

Independent on Sunday columnist John Rentoul is that rare beast, a supporter of the alternative vote as such and not just as a supposed stepping stone to proportional representation. He is pessimistic about his side's chances in the referendum, but he does at least argue for AV because it is not PR, which is a refreshingly honest stance:

It is just too easy for the opponents of change to misrepresent reform. The "no" campaign can throw everything at it: Italy, Israel, Ireland, Winston Churchill (who described the 1931 attempt as one to give power to the "most worthless votes of the most worthless candidates"), deal-making, fudge-and-mudge, and a system that won't let voters "kick the rascals out".

Against such nonsense defenders of the alternative vote can only explain patiently that being able to rank candidates in order of preference gives more voters more of a chance of a say in the outcome. It is not morally superior, or perfection, but it minimises the need for tactical voting and reduces wasted votes. Its supporters can use the slogans "power to the people" and "vote for what you really believe in". But they also have to try to make clear what AV is not: it is not a proportional system.

That is precisely why I would rank AV first in order of preference over all other systems. I am not keen on proportional representation because it tends to give disproportionate power to small parties.

This, however, is a problem for the "yes" campaign in Rentoul's opinion:

For most of its activists AV is a halfway house on the road to what they really want, which is proportional representation, where the number of MPs reflects each party's share of the national vote.

As Rentoul makes clear, AV would deliver nothing of the sort.