The AV system is a third rate option for electoral reform and backing it is a serious mistake. That should be reason enough to abandon support for the "yes" campaign. If you need more, then look to Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. I’m sorry, but people who try to ignore the fact that AV is now the political baby of Clegg and the Lib Dems are deeply misguided... Whether the Labour "yes" campaign likes it or not, supporting the AV referendum gives succor to Clegg and his band of Tory-supporting Lib Dems... If the "yes" campaign succeeds in winning it will be delivering a victory for Clegg and the Lib Dems and not one for democratic change.
AV is not going to deliver a better voting system. It isn’t close to being proportional representation or going to make a major difference to the imbalance of the current voting system. That’s why we should all oppose it.
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
THE AV VOTE IS ALL ABOUT CLEGG
Gordon MacMillan has a pop at Labour backers of the alternative vote in a post on Harry's Place:
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
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.
Friday, 12 November 2010
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
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
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".This, however, is a problem for the "yes" campaign in Rentoul's opinion:
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.
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.
Monday, 27 September 2010
ELECTORAL REFORM, NOT LIBERAL FUDGE
Nick Cohen, Observer column, 26 September 2010
For the British Liberal party and much of the liberal intelligentsia, the referendum on the alternative vote has become a desperate justification for a disastrous misjudgment. Like a couple in a terrible relationship, who think that having a child will save the marriage, or a gambler who thinks he can recoup his losses by staking everything on one spin of the wheel, they believe that the promise of bringing the electoral system of post-colonial Papua New Guinea to Britain will spare them from the consequences of economic folly.
Forget that they are going along with the extremist programmes of fiscal hawks who have already pushed Ireland back into recession. Jobs, public services and a decent future for the young count for nothing when set against the prospect of "reform".
Ah, how that word thrills the liberal heart. The remedying of abuses, the annihilation of anachronistic traditions – what nobler calling is there for the earnest soul?
Not that I deny that the British constitution needs fundamental reform. We have an unelected House of Lords and a hereditary head of state. In the Commons, the first-past-the-post system guarantees that parties can win landslides without a majority of the electorate voting for them. In 1997, Tony Blair secured a crushing majority of 179 on a mere 43% of the vote.
To add insult to injury, the unelected Lords and the unrepresentative Commons cannot do their job of holding the executive to account. Because we draw our national leader from Parliament rather than electing him or her directly, Liberals and Tories are doffing their caps to Nick Clegg and David Cameron in the hope of office and sinecures, rather than scrutinising their policies, just as Labour MPs doffed theirs to Blair and Gordon Brown.
Real reformers have much work to do. But instead of constraining the abuses of an over-mighty executive and unrepresentative Parliament, the liberals will make them worse.
Their "new politics" consists of a backroom deal in which the Liberals accepted a Tory proposal to cut the number of MPs and the Tories accepted the Liberals' proposal for a referendum on the alternative vote.
Too few people have noticed the authoritarian implications of reducing the number of MPs. Like electoral reform, constituencies of equal size sounds like a marvellous idea. But in an attempt to secure party advantage, the Conservatives will rush a process that ought to be handled carefully. The Boundary Commission will not just liquidate 50 seats, it will reorganise the boundaries of hundreds of other constituencies to find new homes for the abandoned voters. Metropolitan commentators dismiss complaints as special pleading from Labour, which will probably lose ground to the Tories.
They do not understand that most people in Britain still live and die close to where they are born. A sense of place and an attachment to their town or city remain central to many citizens' identity. The Tories are instructing the Boundary Commission to forget about local pride and dispense with public inquiries, where voters in Wolverhampton, for example, could object to being moved into Dudley or voters from Portsmouth could object to being annexed by the Isle of Wight.
At their best, Conservatives once understood the importance of the local and the quirky. Cameron is giving up on the Burkean tradition and carving up Britain like a demented socialist planner scoring lines on a map, not just because he may win more seats but because "reform" will also make the Commons easier for the executive to control.
Consider the position of the harassed MP in the new order. He or she will have thousands more constituents. But they will not have more staff to serve them. A grateful executive has taken the opportunity of the expenses' scandal to hack the resources they need to represent their constituents and investigate the state.
More to the point, if Tory MPs object to Cameron's policies, they will find it far harder to combine with the opposition to mount a successful rebellion. The PM is not proposing to match a cut in the number of MPs with a cut in the number of ministers and junior ministers who must toe the party line or lose their jobs. The payroll vote will remain as strong as ever, while the number of potentially rebellious backbenchers falls.
Say what you will about his hunger for power, but Cameron emerged from the coalition negotiations as a formidable political operator. After making sure the public could not vote on or even attend public inquiries to contest his boundary changes, he made certain that Clegg's proposed "reform" would be subject to a referendum he could well lose.
Clegg, by contrast, emerged as a twerp. He was such a pushover he could not even get a reform of the system the public might support on the ballot paper. Instead of a modified version of PR, he settled for the alternative vote, a joke system that does not solve any of the democratic problems Britain faces. Only Australia, Fiji and the guano-rich Pacific island of Nauru use AV. (The Papua New Guineans dropped it and the Fijians are having their doubts.) In New Zealand, when voters were asked what should replace British first past the post in 1992, only 6.6% supported AV. The rest rejected it for the sensible reason that it would not produce a parliament that reflected the views of the country.
As we approach the referendum, I will take great pleasure in watching journalists destroy alleged supporters of AV by reading out their past statements in which they explicitly rejected it in favour of more proportional systems.
Just as Cameron's boundary changes will not limit the power of the executive, so Clegg's AV will not stop prime ministers getting whopping majorities on a minority of the first preference vote. Go back to Blair's landslide in 1997. As the late Lord Jenkins pointed out in his commission on electoral reform, "simulations of how the 1997 result might have come out under AV suggest that it would have significantly increased the size of the already swollen Labour majority". To be precise, it would have swollen it from 179 to 245.
As compensation for economic mismanagement, the liberals' reforms fail to pass two basic tests. They are not liberal. They do not reform.
Cross posted from Comment is Free
For the British Liberal party and much of the liberal intelligentsia, the referendum on the alternative vote has become a desperate justification for a disastrous misjudgment. Like a couple in a terrible relationship, who think that having a child will save the marriage, or a gambler who thinks he can recoup his losses by staking everything on one spin of the wheel, they believe that the promise of bringing the electoral system of post-colonial Papua New Guinea to Britain will spare them from the consequences of economic folly.
Forget that they are going along with the extremist programmes of fiscal hawks who have already pushed Ireland back into recession. Jobs, public services and a decent future for the young count for nothing when set against the prospect of "reform".
Ah, how that word thrills the liberal heart. The remedying of abuses, the annihilation of anachronistic traditions – what nobler calling is there for the earnest soul?
Not that I deny that the British constitution needs fundamental reform. We have an unelected House of Lords and a hereditary head of state. In the Commons, the first-past-the-post system guarantees that parties can win landslides without a majority of the electorate voting for them. In 1997, Tony Blair secured a crushing majority of 179 on a mere 43% of the vote.
To add insult to injury, the unelected Lords and the unrepresentative Commons cannot do their job of holding the executive to account. Because we draw our national leader from Parliament rather than electing him or her directly, Liberals and Tories are doffing their caps to Nick Clegg and David Cameron in the hope of office and sinecures, rather than scrutinising their policies, just as Labour MPs doffed theirs to Blair and Gordon Brown.
Real reformers have much work to do. But instead of constraining the abuses of an over-mighty executive and unrepresentative Parliament, the liberals will make them worse.
Their "new politics" consists of a backroom deal in which the Liberals accepted a Tory proposal to cut the number of MPs and the Tories accepted the Liberals' proposal for a referendum on the alternative vote.
Too few people have noticed the authoritarian implications of reducing the number of MPs. Like electoral reform, constituencies of equal size sounds like a marvellous idea. But in an attempt to secure party advantage, the Conservatives will rush a process that ought to be handled carefully. The Boundary Commission will not just liquidate 50 seats, it will reorganise the boundaries of hundreds of other constituencies to find new homes for the abandoned voters. Metropolitan commentators dismiss complaints as special pleading from Labour, which will probably lose ground to the Tories.
They do not understand that most people in Britain still live and die close to where they are born. A sense of place and an attachment to their town or city remain central to many citizens' identity. The Tories are instructing the Boundary Commission to forget about local pride and dispense with public inquiries, where voters in Wolverhampton, for example, could object to being moved into Dudley or voters from Portsmouth could object to being annexed by the Isle of Wight.
At their best, Conservatives once understood the importance of the local and the quirky. Cameron is giving up on the Burkean tradition and carving up Britain like a demented socialist planner scoring lines on a map, not just because he may win more seats but because "reform" will also make the Commons easier for the executive to control.
Consider the position of the harassed MP in the new order. He or she will have thousands more constituents. But they will not have more staff to serve them. A grateful executive has taken the opportunity of the expenses' scandal to hack the resources they need to represent their constituents and investigate the state.
More to the point, if Tory MPs object to Cameron's policies, they will find it far harder to combine with the opposition to mount a successful rebellion. The PM is not proposing to match a cut in the number of MPs with a cut in the number of ministers and junior ministers who must toe the party line or lose their jobs. The payroll vote will remain as strong as ever, while the number of potentially rebellious backbenchers falls.
Say what you will about his hunger for power, but Cameron emerged from the coalition negotiations as a formidable political operator. After making sure the public could not vote on or even attend public inquiries to contest his boundary changes, he made certain that Clegg's proposed "reform" would be subject to a referendum he could well lose.
Clegg, by contrast, emerged as a twerp. He was such a pushover he could not even get a reform of the system the public might support on the ballot paper. Instead of a modified version of PR, he settled for the alternative vote, a joke system that does not solve any of the democratic problems Britain faces. Only Australia, Fiji and the guano-rich Pacific island of Nauru use AV. (The Papua New Guineans dropped it and the Fijians are having their doubts.) In New Zealand, when voters were asked what should replace British first past the post in 1992, only 6.6% supported AV. The rest rejected it for the sensible reason that it would not produce a parliament that reflected the views of the country.
As we approach the referendum, I will take great pleasure in watching journalists destroy alleged supporters of AV by reading out their past statements in which they explicitly rejected it in favour of more proportional systems.
Just as Cameron's boundary changes will not limit the power of the executive, so Clegg's AV will not stop prime ministers getting whopping majorities on a minority of the first preference vote. Go back to Blair's landslide in 1997. As the late Lord Jenkins pointed out in his commission on electoral reform, "simulations of how the 1997 result might have come out under AV suggest that it would have significantly increased the size of the already swollen Labour majority". To be precise, it would have swollen it from 179 to 245.
As compensation for economic mismanagement, the liberals' reforms fail to pass two basic tests. They are not liberal. They do not reform.
Cross posted from Comment is Free
Thursday, 8 July 2010
NOT SO GOOD FOR GREENS
Longstanding Green activist Derek Wall thinks that the alternative vote is a means of keeping Greens out of parliament:
If voters support AV we lose and if voters support the existing system we lose... AV is not a fair or proportional voting system... AV can be seen as a means to prevent the growth of the Greens. If it is introduced it will make the system a little more democratic, reducing the pressure for change ... and if the referendum fails to introduce it, it will be said that voters are happy with first past the post... We need to be campaigning for actual PR, something the Liberal Democrats have abandoned so quickly most of their supporters have not even noticed.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
IF ONLY AV IS ON OFFER, SPOIL YOUR VOTE
Paul Anderson, Tribune column, 6 July 2010
It is easy enough to see why Nick Clegg supports introduction of the alternative vote for elections to the House of Commons. All the indications are that it would make it much easier for the Lib Dems to retain the parliamentary seats they currently hold – and they could well need all the help they can get after jumping into bed with a Tory party that seems intent on crashing the economy just as it did in the 1980s.
Why anyone apart from Clegg and his party should want AV is, however, something of a mystery. AV would do nothing to address the major flaws in the first-past-the-post system we currently use for Westminster elections, which are its gross disproportionality and its concomitant tendency to turn general election campaigns into battles for the votes of a few hundred thousand wavering voters in a hundred of so marginal seats. And AV might make these flaws worse.
AV is not, repeat not, proportional representation. It is not even a step towards it. It is the electoral system used in Australia for the House of Representatives, in which voters in single-member constituencies rank candidates on the ballot paper in order of preference (1, 2, 3, 4 etc) rather than putting a single “X” next to their first choice as we do in first-past-the-post elections in the UK. If no candidate wins more than 50 per cent of first preferences, the second preferences of the candidate with the lowest number of first preferences are redistributed. The process is then repeated until one candidate reaches 50 per cent plus one of votes cast.
AV has two superficial attractions over FPTP. Every winning candidate under AV can claim to have the support (however grudgingly faute de mieux) of a majority of his or her constituents; and AV makes the practice of tactical voting much less of a guessing game for voters. A UKIP supporter in a Tory-Labour marginal who prefers the Tories to Labour, for example, would be able under AV to vote “UKIP 1, Conservative 2” with a reasonable level of confidence that the second preference would count rather than, as now, having to decide whether or not to put an “X” next to the Tory candidate’s name for fear of letting Labour in by “wasting” a vote on UKIP.
But there are downsides even to these attractions. Is a candidate in a three-way AV contest who wins by 51 per cent to 49 per cent with the help of second preferences, having trailed 46-29 on first preferences, more democratically legitimate than someone who wins a three-way FPTP contest 46-29-25? Why should your second choice have the same weight as my first choice?
AV encourages the worst kind of lowest-denominator politics – every marginal contest is a sordid scurry to be everyone’s second choice – and, partly because of this, it delivers more ludicrous landslides than FTPT whenever one political party is no one’s second choice despite having a solid core of first choices. Labour was massacred in 1983 under FPTP: it would have been worse under AV. Ditto the Tories in 1997.
Sorry, but this is a farce. FPTP is crap – but so is AV. We are going to be asked to choose between the two, if the government has its way, in a referendum next May. The choice is an insult. If the referendum bill cannot be amended to include a genuinely proportional third option, reformers should spoil their ballots in the referendum by scrawling “AV is not PR” across their papers.
UPDATE 29 JULY
The government's proposed question for the referendum on the voting system has been released:
Cross-posted from Gauche
It is easy enough to see why Nick Clegg supports introduction of the alternative vote for elections to the House of Commons. All the indications are that it would make it much easier for the Lib Dems to retain the parliamentary seats they currently hold – and they could well need all the help they can get after jumping into bed with a Tory party that seems intent on crashing the economy just as it did in the 1980s.
Why anyone apart from Clegg and his party should want AV is, however, something of a mystery. AV would do nothing to address the major flaws in the first-past-the-post system we currently use for Westminster elections, which are its gross disproportionality and its concomitant tendency to turn general election campaigns into battles for the votes of a few hundred thousand wavering voters in a hundred of so marginal seats. And AV might make these flaws worse.
AV is not, repeat not, proportional representation. It is not even a step towards it. It is the electoral system used in Australia for the House of Representatives, in which voters in single-member constituencies rank candidates on the ballot paper in order of preference (1, 2, 3, 4 etc) rather than putting a single “X” next to their first choice as we do in first-past-the-post elections in the UK. If no candidate wins more than 50 per cent of first preferences, the second preferences of the candidate with the lowest number of first preferences are redistributed. The process is then repeated until one candidate reaches 50 per cent plus one of votes cast.
AV has two superficial attractions over FPTP. Every winning candidate under AV can claim to have the support (however grudgingly faute de mieux) of a majority of his or her constituents; and AV makes the practice of tactical voting much less of a guessing game for voters. A UKIP supporter in a Tory-Labour marginal who prefers the Tories to Labour, for example, would be able under AV to vote “UKIP 1, Conservative 2” with a reasonable level of confidence that the second preference would count rather than, as now, having to decide whether or not to put an “X” next to the Tory candidate’s name for fear of letting Labour in by “wasting” a vote on UKIP.
But there are downsides even to these attractions. Is a candidate in a three-way AV contest who wins by 51 per cent to 49 per cent with the help of second preferences, having trailed 46-29 on first preferences, more democratically legitimate than someone who wins a three-way FPTP contest 46-29-25? Why should your second choice have the same weight as my first choice?
AV encourages the worst kind of lowest-denominator politics – every marginal contest is a sordid scurry to be everyone’s second choice – and, partly because of this, it delivers more ludicrous landslides than FTPT whenever one political party is no one’s second choice despite having a solid core of first choices. Labour was massacred in 1983 under FPTP: it would have been worse under AV. Ditto the Tories in 1997.
Sorry, but this is a farce. FPTP is crap – but so is AV. We are going to be asked to choose between the two, if the government has its way, in a referendum next May. The choice is an insult. If the referendum bill cannot be amended to include a genuinely proportional third option, reformers should spoil their ballots in the referendum by scrawling “AV is not PR” across their papers.
UPDATE 29 JULY
The government's proposed question for the referendum on the voting system has been released:
Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the 'alternative vote' system instead of the current 'first past the post' system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?Put that way, I'll withdraw my plea for supporters of proportional representation to spoil their votes. Just vote no.
Cross-posted from Gauche
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)