At Platform10 we are always willing to listen to and promote discussion. Today, we’re publishing two views on the alternative vote – this, from Phil Cane who wants us to vote no. This afternoon, Rene Kinzett will try to persuade us to vote yes.
The Alternative Vote was proposed as the electoral system for Westminster in 1918 and 1931, and both times it failed in the House of Lords. Since then it has also been rejected by Lord Jenkins (whose 1998 Report of The Independent Commission on the Voting System is available here). He cited the danger of tactical voting wiping out a party, the “unpredictable’ disproportional link between seats and percent of the vote ‘it is even less proportional that FPTP [first past the post]”.
In 1997, the Conservative Party won 30.7 per cent of the vote; under FPTP they won 25 per cent of the 659 seats. Under AV, Jenkins reported that the party would only have won 14-16 per cent of those seats. Jenkins concludes his findings on AV by stating that “it inhibits a Commission appointed by a Labour government… presided over by a Liberal Democrat from recommending a solution which… [would] have left the Conservatives with less than half of their proportional entitlement.”
But this disproportional link isn’t a one off. In 2010 when Labour scored only 29 per cent, it would have delivered them almost as many seats (248) as the Conservatives, who won 36.1 per cent of votes (ie 283 seats). In 2005, Blair was re-elected on 35 per cent of the vote – the lowest share of the vote ever won by any majority government (and which meant a majority of 66). Yet under simulations of this election under AV, Labour could have increased its already disproportional majority to 88!
Jenkins is not alone in his disapproval of the Alternative Vote – Nick Clegg famously described it in an interview with the Independent as “a miserable little compromise”.
Caroline Lucas, Leader of the Green Party, has also said that AV “won’t transform politics, and it won’t open up the House of Commons to diverse voices”.
Ben Bradshaw, Head of Labour’s Yes Campaign, told the New Statesman in 2009 that he “never supported AV”. When asked why, he replied, “If one of the reasons that we want reform is to rebuild public trust and confidence in politics, make MPs more accountable, give more power to people and establish a political and parliamentary system that more reflects the will of the public, then AV doesn’t deliver that.”
Even the Electoral Reform Society’s policy on AV before the referendum was that “AV is not a proportional system, the Society does not regard it as suitable for the election of a representative body, e.g. a parliament, council, committees, etc.” They have now edited their position to state, “The Society has long argued that AV is the best system when you’re out to elect a single winner”.
So apart from lack of support and rejection by a report designed to choose a new electoral system, AV suffers other stark objections. Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji are the only other countries to elect their lower house by this method. In Australia, 6 out of 10 voters want to return to FPTP which is used by nearly fifty nations, including India, the world’s largest democracy, and the United States to elect the most powerful person in the world.
Complexity and invalid votes are also a hidden danger of AV. The Australian Parliament analysed 146 countries’ voting patterns to calculate the average number of invalid votes over the last 4 years. Australia was in 46th place, while the United Kingdom was best placed, with 0.2 per cent of votes cast being invalid, compared to Australia’s 3.2 per cent. Even Gambia (1 per cent) and Bangladesh (1.5 per cent) – both FPTP users and with half the literacy rate of Australia – suffered fewer invalid votes.
But the most profound problem with the Alternative Vote (apart from its disproportional nature, failure to eliminate tactical voting, its lack of support from its proponents or its obscurity for national body elections) is that it doesn’t eliminate the problem of safe seats. In Australia since 1945, 40 per cent of seats haven’t changed hands; inner city and rural seats are nearly all safe and it’s in the suburban marginals that elections are won. In the UK the equivalent figure is just 29 per cent of seats.
As a modern Conservative I support and understand the need to modernise our Parliament and the electoral system (AMS or AV+). FPTP may be flawed but AV (the only option, there is no magical road to STV after AV) does nothing to solve these problems it adds to them. So I implore you to go out and campaign, support and vote NO To AV.
Related posts:
Worth reading Jenkins again I suggest. Lots of errors in your article including misunderstanding the Jenkins report’s main criticism of tactical voting. Jenkins said that tactical voting happens under First Past the Post, not AV.
The report said: ““[AV] would increase voter choice in the sense that it would enable voters to express their second and sometimes third or fourth preferences, and thus free them from a bifurcating choice between realistic and ideological commitment or, as it sometimes is called, voting tactically.”
“@PlatformTen: New blogpost: @PhilCane argues #no2av http://bit.ly/eStcs2” I am still undecide.
FPTP may not be great but it’s not bad either. I think the main argument against AV is that at best it is no better than FPTP and at worst it actually makes the final outcome even more unrepresentative than the current system. I wonder why Nick Clegg ever agreed to having this referendum. It was almost like he was prepared to accept a vote on any form of electoral reform, no matter its attributes.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Platform 10 » Blog Archive » Phil Cane: No to AV -- Topsy.com
Phil, I issued a challenge in my post on this (to be published at lunchtime) that those against reform need to do more than just attack AV, you need to give us some positive reasons for staying with FPTP.
I also criticise the “no” camp for being slap-dash with the facts, often using misleading or totally irrelevant examples of where some form of AV/preferential voting is used somewhere across the globe. I would also add in misleading use of reports and statistics and your use of Jenkins seems to fall into this category.
On tactical voting, my argument is that AV allows voters to express their natural allegiances in their first preference without the fear of “wasting” their vote. Should their first choice not be successful, then their subsequent preferences are counted. Compare to FPTP (where tactical voting is now rife across marginal constituencies) in which voters have to do all the workings out in their head and often end up voting for the person most likely to defeat the candidate they DON’T want to see elected without having the opportunity to express their TRUE allegiance.
RT @PlatformTen: New blogpost: @PhilCane argues #no2av http://bit.ly/eStcs2
RT @PlatformTen: New blogpost: @PhilCane argues #no2av http://bit.ly/eStcs2
RT @NO2AV: . @PhilCane blogs for @PlatformTen on why he is voting #NO2AV http://bit.ly/eStcs2
Thank you for your comments Jon and Rene, I don’t think I misrepresented Jenkins at all. If you were to read several paragraphs on you would see these two sections, which relate to tactical voting and prefences:
‘many voters cared more about casting an anti-Conservative vote than about whether this would result in a Labour or a Liberal Democrat victory in their particular constituency. (This last factor, however, did not clearly add to the difference between a FPTP and an AV result, for many electors did a sort of ‘do it yourself’ AV and voted for whichever of the two opposition candidates they thought was the more effective challenger.)’
‘However, it is necessary to acknowledge the argument that the second or subsequent preferences of a losing candidate, if they are decisive, are seen by some as carrying less value (and even as arising almost accidentally) and so contributing less to the legitimacy of the result, than first preference votes (or indeed the second preferences of the most powerful candidates).’
On the positives of FPTP there:
- It gives a chance for popular independent candidates to be elected.
- Third parties are able and do get elected, as do minor or nationalist parties
- It stops extremist parties from being elected to the Commons
- Provides strong, stable government
- It perseveres the principle of ‘one man one vote’
- Allows for a decisive vote for a single candidate
- On the whole allows for single party government
- Very simple to understand and lowest per invalid vote system in the world
- Allows for quick counting and easy change of government
- It gives a chance for popular independent candidates to be elected.
FPTP rarely gives the chance for an independent candidate to be elected, we need only three fingers to count how many times that has happened in recent electoral history (Wyre Forest, Tatton and Blaenau Gwent) and the issues leading to these results in two out of three were about political corruption or internal party struggles. Nothing to say that a popular independent candidate wouldn’t be elected under AV, esp if they had broad appeal, came second and could capture subsequent preferences (under AV I would predict that Dr Richard Taylor may have had more chance of holding onto Wyre Forest for example).
- Third parties are able and do get elected, as do minor or nationalist parties
Again, why would elections under AV be any different? With no “wasted” votes, every person could cast their 1st pref for the party they really wanted to support. It could lead to some big surprises in levels of support for all parties, esp in areas where a party has been cast by opponents as a “can’t win here” party.
- It stops extremist parties from being elected to the Commons
AV would only allow eg BNP in if the BNP already had STRONG support and came close 2nd in a any seat AND that the subsequent preferences of supporters of parties who came behind the BNP actually WENT to the BNP. Name a place where this scenario is likely!
- Provides strong, stable government
FPTP hardly lived up to this promise last May, did it?
- It perseveres the principle of ‘one man one vote’
So does AV and it gives more choice.
- Allows for a decisive vote for a single candidate
And if a candidate is elected every election with barely 40% of the vote, how decisive is the endorsement of that candidate to be the MP?
- On the whole allows for single party government
But FPTP had produced small majorities/hung parliament since WW2 in 2010, 1979, 1974, 1970 (Heath had to bunk up with UUP to get 31 seat maj), 1964, 1951 (National Liberals and UUP giving Tories 17 seat maj) and 1950, leading to either new elections or “back room deals” or uneasy alliances WITHIN Governments with small single party majorities.
- Very simple to understand and lowest per invalid vote system in the world
Is AV too complicated for the average voter who has to make more complex preferential choices in terms of being a consumer every day of the week?
- Allows for quick counting and easy change of government
This does not take into account the possibility of using electronic voting/counting methods. Also how “quick” an election is to count is secondary imo to how fair the system is, how much choice is gives and how accurately the result mirrors the general will.
The US does not use FPTP to elect the president.
USA election is FPTP election – the indirect nature of the Electoral College is a different matter. MOST States use FPTP when electing their delegates to the College (a FPTP “winner takes all” poll).
Phil Cane’s argument demonstrates the ridiculously self-contradictory nature of the arguments being advanced in favour of FPTP: many of the deficiencies that are ascribed to AV are also clear deficiencies of FPTP. So, for example, Phil criticises AV for its disproportionality, failure to eliminate tactical voting and perpetuation of safe seats: all of which are well known, systemic failings of FPTP.
The confusion in Phil’s argument reaches its height in the following passage: “In 2010 when Labour scored only 29 per cent, [AV] would have delivered them almost as many seats (248) as the Conservatives, who won 36.1 per cent of votes (ie 283 seats).” Euh? Under FPTP, Labour actually won more seats than this (258). Admittedly, the Conservatives did disproportionally better out of FPTP (not, in my book, a valid argument for it); but the projected total of 283 seats is still weighted in the Tories’ favour, as it constitutes 43.5% of the seats. In other words, Phil Cane has just demonstrated that, in 2010, AV would have been more proportional but would still have unduly favoured the Tories.
One suspects that Phil supports AMS or AV+, which he alludes to, but won’t say so because that would make him just like the proponents of AV, who he criticises for not really supporting the system they are campaigning for.
As both AV and FPTP are clearly highly flawed, the only sane response is to reject both by spoiling one’s ballot paper or not voting: the total of spoiled ballots and abstainers thereby robbing the referendum result, whichever way it goes, of all credibility. Sign up to the ‘Send A V-sign to Westminster’ campaign!
David, I could sign up to every one of your arguments until your last para! No electoral system is “perfect” but AV is a hell of a lot better than FPTP and they are the only options on the table. Let’s vote for reform!
René, I think “a hell of a lot better than FPTP” is a bit of an over-statement! It’s marginally better, at best, and is really just a mitigated form of FPTP. I know these are the only options on the table; but that doesn’t mean we should accept the meagre crumbs that are being dropped to us. Spoiling our ballots or not voting is a way to send a message to the politicians that this is just not good enough.
David, I think you underestimate what will happen if AV is rejected. It will not be taken by politicians that they have to go away and come up with something better to offer (such as PR), it would be taken as a ringing edorsement of the current system, and result in FPTP remaining as our system for a very, very long time.
AV /is/ a significant step forward, and for the vast majority of constiuencies, it’s easy to see why. Take my constituency (Birmingham Yardley). 16,000 voters voted for the Lib Dem candidate, who won, and became our MP. over 24,000 people voted for the other, losing candidates however. So, how can I be sure that our current MP has a strong, true endorsement of the people in the constituency where I live?
By contrast, with AV establishing the concept that a candidate needs 50% of the vote, it represents a significant improvement, and whilst it’s not PR, I feel we have to grab this opportunity with both hands, because it’s highly unlikely another -better- option would be offered to us if we don’t.
Mark, nail on the head there. A rejection of AV will be a rejection of reform for decades, as I argued in my YES article on this site.
I’m not in favour of designing electoral systems to advantage or disadvantage particular parties, even if those parties are extremists like the BNP. If you don’t want the BNP to have any seats, say so and try and get them banned.
I think that electoral systems should be designed with the voter in mind. They should be designed to give voters the maximum possible power and influence over who serves them. If voters want to elect extremists that is not a failure of the electoral system. It is a fault of the candidates of mainstream parties who have failed to convince the electorate, by both word and deed, that mainstream parties are worthy of being elected.
However, as you put forward the argument that AV might favour the BNP I have to disagree with you on the facts.
The BNP did not finish second in any seat they contested. They finished third in only two seats, Barking and Dagenham and Rainham. In one seat the total of votes not cast for the top three candidates was lower than the margin between 2nd and 3rd places. Even if everyone one had cast a second preference for the BNP candidate they could not have finished second. In the other seat, Margaret Hodge won more than 50% of the votes and would have been elected on 1st preferences.
LSE lead polling on second preferences found that the BNP pick up very few second preferences.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2010/10/27/if-the-alternative-vote-had-been-in-use-at-the-2010-general-election-the-liberal-democrats-would-have-won-32-more-seats-and-a-labour-liberal-democrat-coalition-would-also-have-had-a-commons-majority/
On the facts, with current voting patterns, AV does not help the BNP.
For more detailed analysis please see
http://fairervotesedinburgh.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/i-dont-agree-with-the-bnp-but-i-will-fight-to-the-death-for-their-right-to-lose-an-election-under-a-fairer-voting-system/
Reply to Mark Lomas: I’m not talking about rejecting AV but about rejecting the choice we’re being offered in this referendum, which matters less to people than other possible referendum topics such as PR, but also Britain’s EU membership and an English parliament. By the way, if an English parliament were established, this would have to be on the basis of PR, so it could ironically be the quickest route to PR.
It’s true that if the no’s won the referendum, they’d try to spin it as an endorsement of FPTP. But if the turn-out and margin of victory are low, and the number of spoiled ballots high, this would lack credibility. In any case, I just don’t buy the view that a ‘victory’ for FPTP would put paid to electoral reform for decades, as René says. For a start, there is the English parliament dimension I’ve just mentioned. Then we’ll probably be getting a wholly or partially elected House of Lords using a party-list PR system. That would leave the Commons as the only national representative body in the UK (including the devolved parliament / assemblies) not elected by PR, and this anomaly will begin to stick out more and more like a sore thumb, especially if subsequent elections deliver large majorities to one of the two biggest parties on a minority share of the vote.
By the way, the same is likely to happen if AV wins, as AV is not proportional, as we know, so that AV would then be the anomaly, and people would be very dissatisfied if AV delivered a grossly disproportional election result, which is distinctly on the cards. On the other hand, if AV wins and starts to generate more proportional results (as would have been the case in 2010, according to the surveys), that could put paid to PR for decades to come just as easily as a win for FPTP, as opponents of PR would justifiably argue that reformers had got their way and were demanding further change only to suit their political preferences.
I accept that there are many constituencies such as yours, Mark, where AV would produce a more legitimate result. However, there are just as many where it wouldn’t change a thing, such as the seat I live in, which is a safe Tory plurality (they won 48% of the vote last time, and it’s almost inconceivable that this could be overturned by AV). And besides, AV doesn’t guarantee that the winner obtains over 50%: it’s still possible to win on a plurality if enough voters do not indicate a preference for any of the final candidates left in the race. In fact, I think this will be the case in a lot of constituencies, because the number of Labour and Lib Dem supporters prepared to give each other’s parties their second preferences will be greatly reduced compared to previous elections. For my part, I would not give either the Conservatives or Labour a preference, even my lowest one.
I’ve covered a deal of this elsewhere, but the key points:
Calculations about how proportional or otherwise AV is are rather unreliable given the unpredictable nature of the public reaction to the Lib Dems next election and given the long term rise in “other”.
The question of is it people’s first preference is, if you wont mind me saying, a rather FPTP way of thinking about things. I personally want AV, it’s my first preference. There are others who prefer some kind of regional PR and others who want AV+. This is rather academic though if the question on the ballot paper is “AV or FPTP, choose only one”. Would a vote listing all options come up with AV? No, which I feel is a shame as it’s my first choice, (I’d still campaign for such a vote). But that’s not the question. Just because you cant have you first or even your second choice doesn’t mean you no longer care. Dont make the perfect the enemy of the good.
As for safe seats, no system that keeps constituencies can ever solve the problem of safe seats. However AV can do something similar. In a safe seat the clearly winning party can do something about it however. Instead of one candidate who is bound to win the party can put forward more than one. In FPTP this would split the vote and endanger the seat, under AV second preferences stay in the same party so this makes each MP more accountable.
There is a problem with AV being a more complex system. But it’s important not to overstate it or to assume proper voter education is incapable of rectifying this.
David;
I don’t see how your points lead to the logical conclusion that we should either vote no, stay away, or spoil the paper.
For the first time in a long time, we’re being offered a choice, and that choice has nothing to do with the English Parliament, or the EU – it has to do with our current system of constituencies electing representatives to the Westminster House of Commons – anything else is a completely seperaate question, and should be treated as such, and if reform is needed elsewhere, a ‘Yes’ vote for AV would only serve to show that people are looking for changes to be made, and the case for reform elswehre would then be /stronger/ – a no vote would appear to be a rejection of change.
As you say, there are -some- constituences where the winner gets a strong endoresment, but I contest the idea that such constituences are not in the minority. Even if they weren’t, the rest of us in constituences where strong results are /not/ produced (such as mine), should not be expected to simply put up with an obvious and fundamental democratic flaw, just because it’s not a problem accross the board.
If there is a plurality in your constituency, you are right that this is unlikely to change in AV – you are lucky to be living in a constituency where a strong endorsement of the candidate is produced. For a constituency like mine however (and there are a lot!), a change to AV /would/ result in us being /more/ confident than we are now, that the elected representative is the MP the people want.
I accept this confidence is not 100%, I accept it isn’t PR – but if we ignore for a moment other issues like the English Parliament, and the EU, we can see clearly that a move to AV would make it far more likely for us to have strongly endorsed MPs in parliament, for more constituences, more of the time. That’s got to be better, and it would be a result I would personally feel much happier with.
Mark, I’m not recommending that people vote no, rather that they should spoil their ballot or not vote. This is equivalent to voting ‘neither of the above’ if that option were included on the ballot paper. I feel sure that many of the advocates of AV would vote for that option if it were included – which is obviously why it has not been. So I’m advocating a protest vote or no-vote (as opposed to voting no, if you see what I mean).
On one level, you’re right that the AV referendum has nothing to do with the EU or an English parliament. But on another level, that’s my whole point: we’re being offered this referendum on what is essentially a minor tweak to the democratic procedures in England and Britain as a whole, rather than the referendums that really matter to the people (as has been demonstrated by numerous opinion polls) and which would make a real difference to democracy in England – and which would also advance PR, as an English parliament would have to use a proportional system.
I accept that you feel that AV will bring about more legitimate election results in constituencies like yours. But firstly, I would ask you to consider how legitimate those results really are, as AV often does not deliver what it says on the tin: it often fails to deliver a majority winner, plus it can produce a latent majority winner with a higher share of first and subsequent preferences than the declared winner, based on the fact that the second and subsequent preferences of voters who chose the top-two parties as their first preference are not counted.
Secondly, overall, AV will be likely to perpetuate and even aggravate the present status quo by consolidating Labour parliamentary dominance of the North of England, the Midlands and London, and strengthening Tory dominance of southern England – at least if the present poll ratings are reflected in the eventual election. It does not give much more of a realistic chance to the smaller parties. If AV is introduced, the political establishment could end up patting itself on the back because it’s managed to get away with introducing a nominal reform that changes virtually nothing – and certainly does nothing to address the democratic deficits from the lack of an English parliament and from all the sovereignty we have surrendered in so many areas – without democratic consultation – to the EU.
So your main argument is that you don’t like AV because you think the Conservatives will do badly out of it? That’s not an unbiased way of assessing an electoral system.
AV isn’t inherently unfair to any one party.
The reason that Jenkins says that the Tories would have done badly is because the anti-tory vote has been so strong in the last 20 years meaning that the tories wouldn’t pick up many second choice votes.
If AV came in the Tories would campaign differently to win more second choice votes and the result would be more proportionate.
If that means that Conservative (or any other party) policy has to change to better reflect the will of the country then so much the better.
David;
Whilst I agree with you that AV isn’t perfect, I refute the idea that it would be a minor tweak. It may be a minor tweak from the perspective of Westminster, but from the perspective of the /voter/ and the individual constituency, it would be a major stride forward.
Your arguments about the legitamcy of the AV results are compelling, but still do not address the fact that the legtamcy of the FPTP results are a shambles, and AV /would/ be a major improvement to this. Again, it’s an argument against AV that doesn’t actually defend FPTP. When looking at both systems side by side, does AV give us a much better chance of strong endorsements for MPs? Yes. Could it be even better? Yes – but so what, it’s /still/ better than FPTP!
Advocating that I spoil my ballot is just not something I could consider an option, and implies that such rejections are somehow going to be counted. They will be ignored as a statistical side note. If, -IF- by some miracle you convince an overwhelming majority of people to spoil their ballot, we will wake up on May 7th to bickering, politcal mud-slinging, and a new sense of chaos descening on the very idea of political reform.
Both sides would argue that it was an endorsement of their argument – with the No campaigners suggesting that voters were disgusted with even being asked, and the Yes campaign trying to argue that it meant people wanted a different choice.
How the individual /voter/ would be expected to make themselves heard over such a (theoretical) din, is difficult to see.
To make myself heard, and to secure strong election results in future, I intend to vote, very firmly – YES.
I’m afraid that Lord Jenkins didn’t do his job re: AV.
Do you remember how the pollsters said that Labour would win a majority in the 1992 election?
All but one pollster also overestimated Labour’s share in 1997, this time by 5%.
It was a matter of some debate how this happened, but the pollsters were clearly cutting a few too many corners.
Sadly, Democratic Audit used one of these profiteering pollsters to do the AV ballots. It’s a fair assumption that the Labour vote was significantly oversampled in both 1992 and 1997. Without this, AV would have been shown to be more proportional, even in 1997.
In the same way that Jenkins neglected AV in the report, Clegg neglected it when he called it a “miserable little compromise”. He was, of course, comparing it to STV.
Caroline Lucas, if you’ve ever seen her on QT, is undoubtedly the least intelligent party leader. Her party overruled her and are supporting AV.
The simulation used by the New Statesman is equally meaningless. You cannot simulate how 20+ million people will rank their preferences, nor assume that LibDem voters will uniformly distribute 70+ percent of their 2nd preferences to Labour.
If anything, post Coalition, LibDem voters are more likely to put Tories second.
Post Oldham, Labour are talking about being squeezed by a pro-Coalition vote. If Labour are scared of AV in spite of 100% of MPs voting for it and it being in their manifesto, that should tell you something.
Your 1945 date looks cherry picked. If a seat hasn’t changed hands in about 40 years, it’s safe. 70% of seats in Britain are safe.
Likewise a single poll taken during the first hung parliament in 80 years in Australia can hardly be representative.
Your other points have been effectively rebutted as far as I can see. Are you ready to reverse your position? If not, what points do you think still stand?
No2AV are legally threatening charities for being pro electoral reform.
http://thirdsector.co.uk/Channels/Policy/Article/1049298/Charities-accused-breaching-law-referendum-voting-system/
They also interpreted a military coup in Fiji as ‘abandoning AV’.
http://londonglossy.com/2010/11/labour-mps-back-no-av-campaign/
Is this really an organisation you want to support?
Pingback: An A-Z of rubbish arguments from No2AV « Paperback Rioter
Pingback: An A-Z of rubbish arguments from No2AV | Yes to Fairer Votes – Birmingham
Pingback: An A-Z of rubbish arguments from No2AV (2nd edition) | Yes to Fairer Votes – Birmingham