Let us be honest for a minute, no-one really wants AV. The Conservatives like first past the post (FPTP), the Lib Dems want proportional representation (PR), and Labour… and Labour… It’s almost impossible to know what Labour does want as the parliamentary party is still in angry lashing-out mode. “Gerrymanders” Labour MP’s shouted at every possible opportunity during yesterday’s second reading of the voting reform bill. My pocket dictionary tells me that “Gerrymanders” are people who divide a voting area so as to give their own party an unfair advantage. It didn’t have room to say that “Gerrymanders” are also people who want to keep voting areas to give themselves an unfair advantage but I’m sure my weighty Collins covers this definition.
If you want PR fight for PR
It was not a pretty site watching their angry contorted faces turning redder and redder as it became obvious that the Coalition would deliver on the agreement reached in May. Few Tories rebelled. No Lib Dems rebelled even though the introduction of AV is a big step into the unknown and could actually diminish their chance of having future influence. The pro-PR brigade should forget about AV and use the oxygen that the AV referendum will give to voting reform issues to promote PR. PR may not be on the ballot but it supporters should make sure it’s on the next one, and that there is another referendum. Nick Clegg made a tactical blunder by having the referendum early. If the referendum had have been later in the life of this Parliament voting reform could have been rolled into the general election campaign, thus giving the Lib Dems a mandate to make PR an unbreakable condition of any future Coalition.
AV has a mountain to climb
The odds against AV being passed in the referendum are huge. The No to AV set up looks strong on paper. They will have the wealthier backers, strong political support from both left and right and in Matthew Elliott they have picked an effective campaigner to head-up operations. Those anti-AV Tories who worry of the impact of having the referendum on the same day as the Welsh and Scottish elections may end up celebrating this decision. Out of a possible 59 Scottish seats Labour currently holds 41. Why would they want to support an AV system that could diminish the tartan socialist influence in Westminster? Britain is traditionally a conservative country and will only vote for change if there is a clear-cut case that change will improve their lot. For change to have a chance of happening the case has to be argued passionately by those in authority who still hold respect. This has not been the case. Anti-AV campaigners are currently vastly more passionate than AV supporters.
Openly-minded sceptic
In my personal view there is no “perfect” voting system, otherwise one country would have found it by now. A PR system that permanently keeps a third-party in power does not strike me as being “fairer” than the FPTP system, which almost always keeps minor parties away from decision-making responsibility. If the AV vote was tomorrow I would vote to keep FPTP but I am open minded to the arguments, if I can be bothered to listen to them.
Related posts:
The trouble is we have a voting system designed for 2 party politics. FPTP has produced majority governments at a time when the vast majority of voters (or something very close to it) voted for the 2 largest parties. Since the mid 1970s, the proportion of votes given to them has decreased to the point that in the last election they got about two thirds of the total vote between them. If you take the 2005 election, Labour got a healthy majority of seats – 368 – on 36.5% of the vote. Factor in the low turnout and you’re getting a thoroughly undemocratic outcome which may be a partial cause of the alienation of a lot of people.
The choice is to retain FPTP and live with the perpetuation of majority governments (perhaps) elected by a significant minority of voters but having the absolute power of a Parliamentary majority to do as they wish or to recognise that the electorate is no longer tidily allied to 2 parties and either minority government as in Scotland or coalition as in the UK will be the norms and introduce a voting system to deal with it.
I can’t see the AV system is any improvement on FPTP and the appalling party list voting foisted on the country by that exemplary democrat Jack Straw is I think outwith consideration.
Thanks for the comment Richard.
I agree with everything you say in the first paragraph about the nature of politics changing over the last 50 years and that is why I am open minded about electoral reform. But then my natural conservative instincts kick-in. I will only support a change if I think it is a good change and so far no-one has convinced me that a better, or fairer, voting system exists. AV seems to be a bit rubbish, which is why I think the pro-voting reformers should use the exposure to make the argument they really want to make.
What system do you favour? Maybe the ultimate conclusion of the trend you describe is that FPTP will provide Coalition situations more often than not.
By a process of elimination (much like my preferred voting system), I am left with STV as the system I’d go for.
I appreciate its drawbacks but it has some advantages the most important of which is that in the election itself, the power rests with the voters to choose between candidates of a preferred party and indeed to cast a preference outwith party allegiance if that person is worth it. In Scotland, the introduction of STV has materially improved democracy within local government by either removing entirely the Labour one party states in the Central Belt or at least introducing a large multi party opposition contingent. This is why the Labour stalinists from Scotland are so opposed to STV and incidentally why they loathe Jack MacConnell who accepted it as a price for the LIb dem coalution.