AV is not PR - vote no on 5 May: RENTOUL GETS IT ... FOR THE OTHER SIDE

Monday 8 November 2010

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

VOTE NO FOR PR

FIRST PAST THE POST
The electoral system currently used in UK general elections is first past the post. The candidate winning the most votes in each constituency is elected as an MP.

The main problem with first past the post is that it yields grossly disproportionate results except when the overwhelming majority of voters support one of two big parties (as they did in Britain from 1945 until the mid-1970s).

The last UK general election was not a particularly bad one for proportionality. Even so, the Conservative Party won 36 per cent of the vote and 47 per cent of seats in the House of Commons. Labour won 29 per cent of the vote and 40 per cent of seats; and the Liberal Democrats won 23 per cent of the vote and just 9 per cent of seats.

FPTP regularly delivers massive parliamentary majorities to parties that have won less than 50 per cent of votes – as it did in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1997, 2001 and 2005.

WHY PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION?
The basic case for changing to a system of proportional representation is simple: parties’ representation in parliament should broadly reflect their level of support in elections.

PROPORTIONAL SYSTEMS
There are many different systems of proportional representation, but two have widespread support in the UK, the single transferable vote and the additional member system.

Under STV, traditionally favoured by the Liberal Democrats and used for local elections in Northern Ireland, electors in multi-member constituencies mark their ballot papers ‘1, 2, 3’ and so on in order of preference. Candidates reaching a certain proportion of the vote on first preferences are declared elected, then second preferences of the candidate with least first preferences are redistributed. The process continues until all seats are filled.

Under AMS, traditionally backed by most of Labour’s proportional representation lobby and used in Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and London Assembly elections, electors vote once for a constituency candidate and once for a party. Successful constituency candidates are ‘topped up’ from party lists to ensure proportionality.

The single-member constituency element in an AMS system can be either FPTP or AV, and in most existing versions there is a threshold of a certain number of constituency seats or percentage of the vote (in Germany, where AMS is used for general elections, three seats or 5 per cent) before a party wins seats from regional lists.

A version of AMS using AV for constituency seats topped up regionally to ensure greater proportionality ("AV-plus") was recommended by Lord Jenkins of Hillhead’s Independent Commission on the Voting System, set up by Tony Blair in 1997, when it reported in 1998.

AV IS NOT PROPORTIONAL
Without regional top-up seats, the alternative vote is not a system of proportional representation. AV, used in Australia, retains single-member constituencies from first past the post but changes the marking of ballots to ‘1, 2, 3’ and so on in order of preference. If no candidate gets 50 per cent of first preferences, the second preferences of the candidate with the fewest votes are added to the other candidates’ totals. This process continues until one candidate has more than 50 per cent of the vote.

It is impossible to tell exactly what effect AV would have on British politics – but there is no reason to believe that it would yield more proportional results than FPTP. Indeed, in certain circumstances – in particular when one of the two biggest parties is particularly disliked – it would almost certainly deliver even more spectacular landslides than FPTP to parties with much less than 50 per cent of first-preference votes.

AV IS NOT A STEP TO PR
The alternative vote could be used as part of an additional member system of proportional representation (as recommended by the Jenkins commission) – but this is not what is on offer in the referendum, and nor is it likely to be introduced as a ‘second stage’ of electoral reform. If we vote ‘yes’ on 6 May, we are likely to be stuck with AV for the foreseeable future.

Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.