NOTHING HAPPENS IN REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN

Monday 7 March 2011

NOTHING HAPPENS IN REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN

Week three of the campaign in the run-up to the referendum on the alternative vote has been an almost complete non-event. Ken Clarke made a boiler-plate defence of first past the post at the Tories' spring conference; and the official No to AV campaign made a massive hoo-hah about one of the few Tories in the "yes" camp who happens to have rather old-fashioned views about women and gays and thinks the Israelis are akin to Nazis. Thin gruel indeed ...

1 comment:

trevor fisher7 March 2011 at 20:48
While the poverty of the campaigns is interesting, the real problem is the lack of an alternative - the referendum is a non event, but the two options before us are not being challenged. If the No vote wins, this means no Change, while if the Yes vote wins, this means AV and PR will be off the agenda.

Given this we need a strong VOte No for a change campaign. PR has been totally marginalised and in all the welter of arguments, it will remain marginalised. Unless there is a clear option to keep the PR option open as a consequence of a No vote, then PR simply vanishes. Look at what happened to the campaign for regional government. One defeat in the north, and that was that.

A single blog with few if any comments is not enough. A signed advert is one of the weeklies with a clear statement of why a No vote is not a vote for the status quo is the minimum starting point. With less than 3 months to go, time is running out - or the PR option will disappear from british politics for a generation.

Action not words please!

Trevor Fisher
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

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

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.