A Vonce in a life time Opportunity
With apologies to Count von Count - although he would have liked AV, definitely more than FPTP anyway what with all the counting, he'd be happy - although he'd have to remember to do the "uh uh uhs" out loud, I guess - anyway, I digress.
Tomorrow the UK will be invited to go to the polls in only the second UK-wide referendum ever held (the first was in 1975 on membership of the EEC). The question will read: "At present, the UK uses the “first past the post” system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the “alternative vote” system be used instead?"
The question of electoral reform is not a particularly high-profile one, and I would wager that more of the UK electorate would appreciate a re-run of the 1975 referendum than the plebiscite we've been granted tomorrow. However, there are a few reasons why I will be voting yes, in favour of AV.
While AV is not a magic wand that will cure all Westminster's ills, it is a positive step towards more engaging democracy. At present, far too many Britons live in a modern rotten borough where they feel unrepresented and lack a political vote. Too many people in the UK feel that their current vote is wasted, and that they are unable to express their true feelings at the ballot box because their constituency is populated by a hard core of noisy tribal voters who would support a donkey if it was wearing the right colour rosette. This leads to a significant feeling of alienation from the electoral system.
At present around 20% of voters vote tactically. These people feel unable to express their true feelings at the ballot box due to the fear of letting the baddies in through the back door. Under AV these poor souls will be able to express their first preference, and still have their second and third preferences to keep out the big bad wolves of whichever colour they most dislike.
There is plenty of evidence to show that at present a small number of swing seats define the result of a General Election. The power of your vote varies depending on which constituency you live in. The fantastic voterpower.org.uk will show you how much the power of your vote will improve under AV – for example, in Edinburgh South, (a very marginal seat) the power of my vote will increase from1.014 to 1.122, an increase of a not insubstantial 11%. In my ultra safe hometown constituency of Beckenham, the power of my vote would increase from 0.024 to 0.032 – not a great leap, and not a great deal of power, but still a 33% improvement – in the seats that need it most.
Less than 1/3 MPs attained a majority in 2010, and across the board over the last forty years of UK elections the “winning” party has not won more than 50% of the votes – the closest were Ted Heath’s Tories in 1970 with 46.4%. In fact in 1974, Labour won with 37.2% while the Tories polled 37.9% of the popular vote.
Whether or not AV "will make MPs work harder" (and I have no idea how we would measure this, or even what the Yes campaign really means by it) it will make MPs more attuned to the demands of their electorate - they will have to appeal to more voters to ensure they are returned. This will mean an increase in consensus and a decrease in mudslinging - something Westminster currently leads the way in.
Small parties with wide appeal – such as the Greens – may gain. These are the sorts of parties we should be returning to Westminster - the ones who want to work with other parties to make things work, not the ones who want to obstruct the system and raise the drawer bridge behind them.
A no vote, however, would ruin our chances of improving our broken electoral system for another generation, and when coupled with the upcoming gerrymandering of boundary reform leave us with the strong possibility of healthy Tory majorities for the next hundred years (much like most of the last hundred years).
While the Prime Minister's strongest point in favour of the status quo is that "I just feel it in my gut that AV is wrong" – and putting aside the argument that perhaps someone should hand him a Rennie and point out that coincidental indigestion is not a great basis for deep constitutional thought, the No campaign has also raised some other less than thorough objections:
"voting YES to AV will cost £300m" - This figure is wrong on many levels. It includes the cost of the referendum itself, and of educating voters about AV, which would of course have to happen even if the result is a NO vote, it includes the cost of counting machines, which the Electoral Commission says we have no intention of using, and the UK Treasury itself has said that future elections under AV will cost no more than if contested under FPTP. So do not fear, AV is not eating into the money that baby needs for an incubator, or that Tommy needs for a working rifle.
"AV is complicated" - I'm fairly sure that you, dear learned reader, can count to ten. Those of you with science based degrees may even be able to count to numbers I've never heard of, if so, I think you'll do just fine with AV. As a start it is no more complicated than any of the six electoral systems currently used in the UK, including the Additional Member System (Scottish Parliament/Welsh Assembly), Single Transferrable Vote (Northern Ireland Assembly), Closed Party List (European Parliament) and the Supplemental Vote (London Mayoral Elections). Beyond this, if you are not an ardent psephologist…there always remains the option to vote with just a "1" instead of the illiterate "X" of yore to represent your only preferred candidate - there is no minimum number of preferences required.
"AV will make coalitions more likely" - Several recent studies have shown that had AV been used in UK elections for the last 30 years, the only hung parliament would have been in 2010 – you may have noticed that happened anyway. AV has actually been shown to exaggerate the majorities in most of the UK's elections over the last 30 years. In fact, hung parliaments are more likely now anyway as the two-party system (which FPTP best serves) no longer accurately reflects the interests of Britain's voters.
"The BNP are in favour of AV" - Actually, they support the No campaign. This is because Nick Griffin has realised that narrow (minded) parties with no appeal beyond a small (irrational) niche support will end up with fewer votes.
"the third place candidate can win" - Well yes, potentially, I believe figures from Australia have shown this to have happened 0.2% of the time.
“the Electoral Reform Society stands to benefit financially” – this takes us back to the vote counting machines point above – I don’t think it’s much of a shock that the ERS, a society that exists to campaign for electoral reform is in favour of uh, electoral reform. The No campaign seems to think that the ERS’s subsidiary Electoral Reform Services Limited will gain financially from AV. So far they have gained from AV by printing the referendum ballots (which I think we’ve already agreed would be required either way) and will in the future gain from selling the Treasury the vote counting machines that it has said it doesn’t want and won’t need – mmm fat profits there.
"blah blah blah President Clegg" - I don't really know where to begin with this….AV is about so much more than Nick Clegg. Yes, he supports it, and yes it will benefit the Liberal Democrats most, but only because the current system (set up to reflect a two-party system) is so grossly unfair to the third party in the system. Beyond that, AV – if it is introduced – will bring far greater benefit to British politics than the short term giddy thrill of piling more misery on the embattled Deputy Prime Minister.
This leads neatly to the main request of my piece. Vote whichever way you want; for whichever system you believe is more appropriate, fairer, more proportional. But please, don't vote on the basis of celebrity endorsements, don't vote on the basis of the scare stories from either camp and, most importantly, don't vote just to give one single politician “a kicking” (unless it's John Reid of course).
yousharknotpass
gummygunk