Skip to main content

Why I don't support AV, but will be voting for it anyway

In a blaze of apathy, one of the rarest of British constitutional processes- a referendum- is getting under way. Most voters probably consider the referendum as to whether to adopt the Alternative Vote system- AV- either abstruse and arcane or simply just plain dull. Yet in fact, this referendum is one that will be significant for a generation to come.

The current British electoral system- first past the post (FPTP)- gives a Parliament that is only approximately what the voters choose. Several times in the past, the party with the largest number of MPs, and which therefore becomes the government, has received a lot fewer votes than the supposedly second party. Sometimes MPs can be a elected when three quarters of those who voted chose someone else. In other words, FPTP does not accurately reflect how people actually vote- and it therefore fails a major test of democracy.

The Liberal Democrats- and many others in all parties- believe that the electoral system should give a result that is proportional to how people vote: if 40% of people vote for a party, then it should have 40% of the seats in the House of Commons, not 70%, which is often what happens now.

The way we would prefer to do this is for voters to list in order of preference their candidates, and instead of dividing up regions: Edinburgh West, South, North, East, South West etc, we would have five MPs chosen for the whole of Edinburgh. So in this example, each party would put up five candidates in Edinburgh, and voters chose between them. If voters chose five MPs of a single party, then five would be elected only from that party, and if they chose to vote for an independent candidate and they gained the roughly one fifth of the votes need to qualify, then an independent could be an MP. Sometimes, voters might split their ticket, voting in favour of candidates from different parties, because they like one individual's personal characteristics even if they don't much like their party. The point about this is that it leaves the choice up to the voters themselves, and it guarantees that all parties, and independents, can expect to compete fairly. This system, known in crampingly dull jargon of electoral politics as "the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies", usually, and mercifully shortened to STV, is fair, open and widely used- including in the UK, for Scottish local elections. It is easy to vote: you just list in order of preference, but the counting of the votes is relatively complicated, involving the elimination of the candidates with the lowest number of first preferences and the transfer of their votes proportionately to the other candidates until the final tally, where (in the Edinburgh example, five), MPs are elected having achieved a number of votes and transfers that exceeds the quota (in the Edinburgh example, roughly one fifth of the total votes and preferences cast).

The problem for STV is that neither the Labour Party, nor the Conservatives, like the idea that voters can chose between candidates of the same party. The party barons fear that they can not impose "party discipline" on MPs who have a popular local mandate which has been tested against other candidates of the same party. These popular MPs are indeed far more likely to rebel against the party line.

Yet FPTP is manifestly unfair and all parties at various times have been the victim of it. The result has been that Labour, and a few in the Conservatives have been scratching around for a -rather messy- compromise. This has resulted in the emergence of the Alternative Vote- (AV). Here the method of voting is the same as STV: the voters list in order of preference, but only one MP gets elected for each constituency- in other words we still break up cities and counties into smaller units, with all of the boundary commission disputes and the rest of it. The only real advantage of AV is that in order to win, they must essentially reach a quota of 50%+1, so more MPs would be chosen by the majority of their voters, rather than, as now, where it is happened that MPs have been elected on as little as 25% support.

AV is barely an improvement on FPTP, in that it will not deliver a result that is proportional to how people actually voted, and it allows the party barons to impose more discipline on rebel MPs.

However, FPTP is so unfair that it has to be changed, and getting voters to list in order of preference for one MP is but a short step to listing for several MPs- that is the STV system. So the referendum is critical, because if it fails, it means that voters are essentially too apathetic to care about what happens to their vote. All of the complaints that people have made: from the expenses scandal to poor legislation, to the disconnect between the rulers and the ruled are in part the result of an electoral system that fails to hold the politicians to account. Without the even fairly small change that AV represents, then British politics will be unreformed, and may in the end by unreformable.

So in the final analysis, at this referendum it is necessary for the British people to show their political leaders that the current system has failed and must be reformed. Although the change to AV is actually pretty small, it would be a statement of intent: that the British people want to see an improvement in their democracy.

Unless they do that, the outlook for our political system is bleak indeed. So, even though I think AV changes little in practice, I have registered from overseas and will be voting "Yes" because without that small step no further change is likely for many years- and given the scale of the crisis in the UK, I don't think we can wait that long.

It is the last chance, but it is a chance, and we should grab that chance with both hands.


Bernard Salmon said…
I've always been intrigued by this argument that AV will somehow hold MPs in safe seats to account more than first past the post does. Surely the parts of the country where AV will have the least effect are those where one party gets over 50% of the vote (or very close to it) which are least likely to change hands under AV. If you get 50% of the vote now, you'll probably get it under AV. AV will have the most impact on seats which are already competitive between parties. And let's not forget that very few seats will change hands overall because of AV.
Newmania said…
Why would there be further change the experience of Australia.(60% of whom want to get rid of it) is that it brutally reinforces whatever cartel it creates?
In our case it would be endless coalitions and thereby the end of accountability .
You say everyone has suffered from first past the post; not really, only the third place Party who now want system where second choices count as much as first an obvious absurdity.
It is ,in any case, less proportional than FPPT and would have given Blair a majority of 243
Bernard makes a good point and in any case safe seats were no more corrupt than marginals.
Its not as if you have the slightest wish to see Policy reflect the Public`s views anyway this principle is a sham as was Lloyd George`s attempts to block reform .
Criminal Justice
Social Liberalism
International AID

All these subjects are already skewed to the Liberal agenda as compared to the Public. That doesn`t bother you ?

This is an elite stitch up to demote the voter to a focus group

Popular posts from this blog

Concert and Blues

Tallinn is full tonight... Big concerts on at the Song field The Weeknd and Bonnie Tyler (!). The place is buzzing and some sixty thousand concert goers have booked every bed for thirty miles around Tallinn. It should be a busy high summer, but it isn´t. Tourism is down sharply overall. Only 70 cruise ships calling this season, versus over 300 before Ukraine. Since no one goes to St Pete, demand has fallen, and of course people think that Estonia is not safe. We are tired. The economy is still under big pressure, and the fall of tourism is a significant part of that. The credit rating for Estonia has been downgraded as the government struggles with spending. The summer has been a little gloomy, and soon the long and slow autumn will drift into the dark of the year. Yesterday I met with more refugees: the usual horrible stories, the usual tears. I try to make myself immune, but I can´t. These people are wounded in spirit, carrying their grief in a terrible cradling. I try to project hop

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo

KamiKwasi brings an end to the illusion of Tory economic competence

After a long time, Politics seems to be getting interesting again, so I thought it might be time to restart my blog. With regard to this weeks mini budget, as with all budgets, there are two aspects: the economic and the political. The economic rationale for this package is questionable at best. The problems of the UK economy are structural. Productivity and investment are weak, infrastructure is under-invested and decaying. Small businesses are going to the wall and despite entrepreneurship being relatively strong in Britain, self-employment is increasingly unattractive. Red tape since Brexit has led to a significant fall in exports and the damage has been disproportionately on small businesses. Literally none of these problems are being addressed by this package. Even if the package were to stimulate some kind of short term consumption-led growth boom, this is unlikely to be sustainable, not least because what is being added on the fiscal side will be need to be offset, to a great de