Alternative Vote is no alternative
Bubble — By Daran Hill on February 16, 2010 7:00 am
Will AV make our electoral system more democratic?
REFERENDA are like buses. You wait ages for one, and then two come along. Last week, the House of Commons took a constitutional step as significant, perhaps, for us here as the one on more powers initiated by the National Assembly for Wales.
The Commons approved an amendment to the Constitutional Reform Bill which, if it becomes law, will pave the way for a referendum on 31st October 2011 on changing the UK electoral system from First Past the Post to Alternative Vote (AV). Despite the expectation that the clause will not survive that far, it has for the first time in over a decade placed the issue of electoral reform centre stage at a UK level.
So it is worth looking at how AV would work in practice. The Electoral Reform Society provides a neat explanation of the approach:
The same constituency boundaries are used and voters would elect one person to represent them in parliament, just as we do now. However, rather than marking an ‘X’ against their preferred candidate, each voter would rank their candidates in an order of preference, putting ’1′ next to their favourite, a ’2′ by their second choice and so on. If a candidate receives a majority of first place votes, he or she would be elected just as under the present system. However if no single candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, the second choices for the candidate at the bottom are redistributed. The process is repeated until one candidate gets an absolute majority. The alternative vote is not actually a proportional system, but a majoritarian system.
MPs voted 365 votes to 187 in favour of supporting the proposed amendment to the Bill, with the drive for change coming predominantly from the Labour Party. The Liberal Democrats had supported the more proportional and multi-member Single Transferable Vote system, while the Conservatives broadly favoured no change to the current system.
The whole issue, of course, is far from decided, not least in that we won’t get to such a referendum unless Labour is returned to power this year. The Bill as it stands is unlikely to get the Parliamentary time it needs to pass in this session, and so is tipped to be reintroduced by Brown if he returns to Number Ten. But even then, there is no guarantee AV would be supported in a referendum. Most people think electoral reform is relatively unimportant, and there’s been so little discussion of the proposed change that it would probably leave most people as blank as the boxes on a ballot paper. PoliticsHome tested this hypothesis last week. Those responding who said they would vote and held a definite view divided 53% in opposition to the AV system, while 47% supported the proposed change. Hardly a clear majority and momentum for change.
This situation is as much due to the lack of build up to this point as it is to do with the timing of the Prime Minister’s conversion. This was a theme taken up on the blogosphere. WalesHome.org regular contributor Rene Kinzett, who supports fuller blooded electoral reform, described it thus:
It is rather funny to think that Labour are serious about electoral reform when Brown blocked every attempt by Tony Blair to move the agenda forward back in the post ’97 discussions with the LibDems around the Cabinet table. The reason for this Damascene conversion to electoral reform is nothing but a sham, a grubby attempt to curry favour with LibDems and moderate reformists who have been desperate (and rightly so) to see a reform in how we elected the Commons.
If the PoliticsHome poll is to be believed, this is an analysis with which the public agrees. A thumping 70% felt that the Prime Minister had changed his mind through political calculation; while just 8% believe “he is genuinely convinced of the merits of electoral reform.”
But the cards have now been dealt and both the issue and the stakes have been raised. Any discussion on electoral reform must now consider it first through the AV system rather than any alternative. If the Labour Party did something else on this issue last week other than posture, it did polish the prism through which electoral reform will be viewed in coming years.
For some who want more radical electoral reform, this was a clear step forward. The Independent said “Whatever Mr Brown’s motives, if he is pushing a reforming policy, it deserves support. Those who want a change in our voting system should get behind it.”
Over at the Electoral Reform Society, Chief Executive Dr Ken Ritchie reflected:
Tonight’s vote marks the beginning of the end of First-Past-the-Post. A clear majority of parliamentarians have shown they are willing to break with the past and build a better politics. We wanted MPs to back the amendment on the Single Transferable Vote. The Alternative Vote will not go nearly as far to deliver a representative parliament, an accountable government and responsive MPs. But we finally have movement towards a better voting system.
Others (author included) are less convinced. We remain very persuadable sceptics of full blown proportional representation through the Single Transferable Vote. Our hearts tells us to embrace such a system but our heads remind us of the value of the direct constituency-representative link. In Wales, views have perhaps been coloured by the hybrid electoral system of the National Assembly, where the application of the Additional Member System has enabled the institution to move toward broader proportionality without dispensing with directly elected constituency members. But, speaking personally, if a future referendum were held on introducing STV as the UK electoral system, mine would be a floating vote that would probably be grabbed during the campaign.
The same would not be true of a campaign to change from First Past The Post to AV. It is system loaded to favour traditional parties and would, by its very operation, make it even more difficult than at present for new political forces to break through. Don’t just view that as way of keeping the BNP out. If AV had been used in the past then Labour might never have broken through in the first quarter of the last century; and Plaid might well never won Carmarthen in 1966 or the two North Western seats first taken in 1974.
AV also fails to float my boat because in a UK context, and certainly here in Wales, it would load the system against the right wing in politics. Non-Conservative voters are far more likely to transfer amongst each other than to cross the divide. In that respect, the 1997 and 2001 General Elections in Wales when no Conservatives were returned from Wales despite the party capturing some 20% of the vote was a particularly low point in representative democracy. Any change to the electoral system must look to address this, rather than potentially accentuate existing under representations. AV could well do the opposite and decrease Conservative representation from Wales. That might appeal to some, but it isn’t fair.
Anyone who doubts such outcomes from switching to AV should look at the Democratic Audit research papers on AV, which concluded:
In 1997, our studies showed that the Alternative Vote, the preference of both New Labour and some highly-placed Liberal Democrats, would have been even more disproportional than the existing “first-past-the-post” system.
Whatever else 1997 was to British politics, it was hardly democracy at its most proportional. As someone who inclines toward electoral systems that are broadly representative, AV does not appeal to me.
If we do get to a point where the Alternative Vote is offered to the electorate in a referendum, on that question I would find myself in the No camp.
Tags: constitutional reform, electoral reform, Gordon Brown, referendum
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
17 Comments
The problem is making your vote count. With FPTP your preferred choice can be totally wasted and people do already sometimes vote tactically to keep some parties out. People shouldn’t be forced to vote parties out but to vote parties in.
PR has numerous problems which makes me very wary. Party lists, loss of constituency link and coalitions would be a problem.
AV there is never a wasted vote. You can vote for your favourite party that may not have a choice but then your other choices can also help keep a party out and maintains constituency link without party lists.
There is no perfect rule but empowering every single vote to be valued is a start.
I think to achieve a better democracy we need something more than looking at the commons and how to vote them in and change parliament structures.
I’ll be in the Yes camp
Daran – I almost agree with you. Deeply hostile to AV, but could live with PR system which improves proportionality – though on balance I still prefer FPTP. I like the direct link with consituents too much. If we had to change, the Additional Member System is as good as any. Glyn
An STV system could keep the direct link with constituents.
I’d be opposed to AV, preferring STV or more genuine PR, but I would vote ‘yes’ just because it’s limited progress.
However, why is there a need for a referendum on this simple process issue? Turnout would probably be less than most elections and that’s saying something.
So in essence, with “Alternative Vote” we are looking to incorporate the voting system of the Eurovision Song Contest into British politics?
Britain doesn’t do so well in that competition.
Thanks for the quote, Daran. The main thrust of my article on this http://www.renekinzett.com/2010/02/beware-siren-call-of-step-in-right.html takes issue with the arguments put forward by ERS and others that a vote FOR AV is a form of progress, as though the journey to reform of the electoral system is linear.
The vote for AV is actually a block to reform, an attempt to deliberately limit and divert progress to real reform. I will concede that some people who want to see the AV proposals do well are indeed supporters of real reform and DO see the step to AV as being part of the journey to full PR (much like the adherents to “devolution is a process, not an event” crew, who have, strangely enough, been proved to be correct!). However, the forces AGAINST real voting reform in Westminster want to use the AV vote as a barricade against more reform.
The vote in the Commons was meaningless, the Bill will never receive Royal Assent and the Conservatives would repeal it even if it did pass into law before the General Election. It is easy to scrap and ignore poor attempts at reform, it would have been a lot harder to set aside any proposals which could generate cross-party support, but Brown’s Government is incapable and unwilling to bring forward such reform.
The best way through this mess is for a Royal Commission to be established to properly consider the case for Reform. There is so much material out there for any Commission to use as a starting point, including Roy Jenkins’ inquiry, which was the basis of Blairite proposals for an AV + system of electoral reform (blocked by Brown).
Let us have real reform, discussed openly and with honesty and integrity.
Daran, I disagree fundamentally with your assertion that AV “is a system loaded to favour traditional parties and would, by its very operation, make it even more difficult than at present for new political forces to break through.”
Quite the contrary. AV does away with the guesswork involved in tactical voting. By allowing people to vote for the parties they wholeheartedly support without that vote being wasted it will encourage more parties to stand. It would also make it entirely possible for two rival candidates from the same party to stand, and for the voters to choose between them rather than have the parties make that choice for them.
AV has all the advantages of STV … except for one. AV is essentially STV in single member constituencies. All it lacks is the element of proportionality that STV in multimember constituencies provides. I think one step in the right direction is better than not moving at all.
In contrast to Rene, I see moving to AV as a very useful step on the way to STV, in that it gets people used to the idea of voting “1, 2, 3 …” instead of a single “X”. It then becomes relatively simple to change the sizes and number of members in constituencies so as to introduce the element of proportionality. Of course I accept that what is currently proposed is not motivated by principle. If that were so, Labour would have fulfilled their previous manifesto commitment on the issue years ago. But so what? I don’t give a damn about their motives, for me it is simply right to press for one good change that is achievable now … and fight for the next another day.
But we need to be clear that AV itself is not proportional, and it is rather unfortunate that many people who should (and probably do) know better call it “PR” and then berate it because it isn’t proportional. If what you want is proportionality, go for a different system. All systems are imperfect to some extent. I go for STV in multimember constituencies because I think it is the best balance between retaining the strong constituency link and proportionality.
If anyone is interested, Penddu and myself looked at how STV might work for Assembly elections in Wales here, here and here. I think it delivers remarkably well on both counts.
Before adopting AV, the United Kingdom, should learn from Scotland’s 2007 election debacle. Making big changes (like adopting AV) in elections processes can create chaos that disenfranchises voters and easily hides election rigging. The first election following this change may be a debacle.
The UK is strongly considering two proposals that undermine each other:
1. The proposal that the UK adopt AV, a form of vote ranking and
2. The plan to require that votes be counted on election night.
Making ballots more complex incentivizes computerized vote counting. That is what happened in Scotland in 2007. Computerized vote counting was recommended by the Electoral Reform Society.
The Scottish Elections in 2007
Not so much an election as a national humiliation
Scotland’s voters were treated with arrogance and contempt
Melanie Reid Times Online May 7, 2007 …More than 100,000 people – around one in 20 of those who voted – had their ballot papers rejected in the election:
The biggest poll debacle in the history of British democracy sees up to one in ten votes thrown out
JAMES KIRKUP The Scotsman
“SCOTLAND’S status as a modern democracy was dealt a grievous blow yesterday by a scandal in which up to one in ten votes in the Holyrood election were thrown in the bin uncounted.
The group that promoted STV (a form of vote ranking) to Scotland and
now for the entire United Kingdom, was once caught in rigging its own
election. This is the group promoting and advising election reform in
the UK:
Electoral Reform Society admits its vote was rigged
By Paul Lashmar
Monday, 17 July 2000
…
The Electoral Reform Society, the august body that conducts
independent ballots for many organisations including trade unions, has
suffered the embarrassment of its own ballot rigging scandal.
…
“This has been a major blow to the credibility of the society. It has
in the past had a reputation for honesty which is crucial when running
ballots. The fact that members of the society would stoop to ballot
rigging is very worrying.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/electoral-reform-society-admits-its-vote-was-rigged-707341.html
Daran
A vote must have meaning.
An individual’s vote must have meaning.
The collective vote must have meaning.
In my submission to Roy Jenkins’ inquiry (yes, I am that old) I made the point that the purpose of an election was not to proportionally represent the electorate but to elect a workable government.
Every method has some problem in doing that.
The more a system has a potential for producing a hung parliament the more undesirable it is.
The FPTP has generally delivered a workable government.
Politics has changed because people are disenchanted with politics, not because the politicians have been nicking some of the family’s silver in expenses, but because a manifesto contains things you like and dislike, but in voting for the things you like you are giving approval to things you don’t like. Single issues are becoming more important and Westminster is moving towards meeting that mood. David Cameron’s 100,000 and 1,000,000 votes petition idea was extra-ordinary.
Gordon Brown’s idea of extending referendum to more issues is in part an embracing of single issue politics. It might be the case that the FPTP system may or may not need changing because direct voting by the electorate will reduce the unfairness in there being more MPs (AMs) than the percentage of votes. The increasing ability of the electorate to express their views electronically may reduce the need to represent their views by proportionalising the representatives.
I am generally in favour in of avoiding over representing a party that has either more votes or even fewer votes than the opposition as has happened on occasions since 1945. I am generally content with the ‘list’ in Wales but I am mindful that had Labour won in 2007 election on FPTP we wouldn’t have been faced with a referendum on ‘legislative power’. To that extent I have reservations about the present system because it has produced a hung parliament.
Into this scenario comes the rise of e-politics, especially on single issues. As an example is the appearance of True Wales. Not very long ago, at the inception of the AWC, no-one would have postulated the presence of a single issue group who would command attention. It has only been possible because of the internet. But it is highly unlikely to be the sole example of electronic politics. The referendum has given True Wales a vehicle of action. It can obtain a result. This is unlike the petitions and marches of the past that has garnered support but had no vehicle to enact it demands. If CND were to have had electronic facilitation and a referendum, in all probability the UK wouldn’t have nuclear weapons today. Nor might we have attacked Iraq.
In considering the voting method it is not sufficient to return to Jenkins or to work within the present party electoral system and postulate a way to make it fairer by way of representation.
Waleshome exists because of the internet.
Extrapolate and extend: Discuss.
” I made the point that the purpose of an election was not to proportionally represent the electorate but to elect a workable government.”
Why are they mutually exclusive? You dont explain.
“Single issues are becoming more important and Westminster is moving towards meeting that mood. David Cameron’s 100,000 and 1,000,000 votes petition idea was extra-ordinary.”
Of course you could praise the national assembly for having a petitions process in place already, especially given your supposed support of devolution staying.
“but I am mindful that had Labour won in 2007 election on FPTP we wouldn’t have been faced with a referendum on ‘legislative power’”
Let us never forget the reasoning for Len’s contributions, bashing the nashies and their referendum.
“Let us never forget the reasoning for Len’s contributions, bashing the nashies and their referendum.”
Cyntaf – we play the ball, not the man, around here.
Len writes: “I am mindful that had Labour won in 2007 election on FPTP we wouldn’t have been faced with a referendum on ‘legislative power’”
How can you be sure? After all, the referendum mechanism to expand the Assembly’s powers to a defined legislative point was Labour’s idea, not Plaid’s.
cyntaf
“Why are they mutually exclusive? You don’t explain. “
I was summarising my submission to Roy Jenkins and didn’t think that an elaborated explanation was appropriate in the comment.
They are not mutually exclusive because under the FPTP system it is what often happens, but the election is held to elect a workable government. If an election or an election process fails to do that then it has not served its purpose. My point to Jenkins was to keep the focus on the purpose and not on the mechanics.
“Of course you could praise the national assembly for having a petitions process in place already, especially given your supposed support of devolution staying.”
The praise, of course, goes to Peter Hain!
“supposed”
There is not one single instance that you could find that even vaguely supports this adjective and very many clear statements and arguments to the opposite. Honest, ref, it wasn’t me. I didn’t do it.
“Let us never forget the reasoning for Len’s contributions, bashing the nashies and their referendum.”
When I was a teenager I played in the front row and learned the gentle art of field rugby. One of the important things was how to look innocent when the ref caught you. “Honest, ref, it wasn’t me.” The next was how to look horrible so that the outside half was terrorised. It meant that you never actually had to tackle him. The next was all important. When to kick someone. It is a good time to kick someone when they were on the ground. A better time was when he couldn’t kick you back, but the best time was when the ref wasn’t looking.
“Cyntaf – we play the ball, not the man, around here.”
You’re lucky you didn’t get a yellow card. Lose seventeen points.
DH
“How can you be sure? After all, the referendum mechanism to expand the Assembly’s powers to a defined legislative point was Labour’s idea, not Plaid’s.”
Peter Hain’s to be exact.
It wasn’t in the 2007 Labour manifesto. It was in Plaid’s. The demand was Plaid’s condition for saving Labour’s administration. Rhodri tried to scupper it last Nov/Dec.
Len: “It wasn’t in the 2007 Labour manifesto. It was in Plaid’s. The demand was Plaid’s condition for saving Labour’s administration. Rhodri tried to scupper it last Nov/Dec.”
Labour manifesto 2005: “We will create a stronger Assembly in Wales with enhanced legislative powers… Our third term will build upon our unprecedented programme of constitutional reform; embedding a culture of devolved government at the centre and self-government in our communities… But the experience of the last six years shows the need for further reform. In a third term we will legislate for a stronger Assembly with enhanced legislative powers.We will improve the accountability of Ministers by ending the confusing corporate status of the Assembly, thereby ensuring that the people of Wales know who is responsible for the decisions taken in their names.”
And legislate Labour did, with the Government of Wales Act 2006, which set out Part 3, Part 4, the referendum trigger et al.
Labour manifesto 2007: “A choice between a Labour Assembly Government ready to go with a full legislative programme, to make use of the new powers the Assembly will have from May 2007 onwards, and an opposition bereft of new ideas, addicted to whingeing and running Wales down, and with neither the experience or the competence to make the most of these new opportunities for Wales.”
Ok, no explicit commitment to the referendum in 2007-11. But it’s still Labour’s tool, not Plaid’s, and the expansion of powers is done within Labour’s legislative boundaries, not Plaid’s.
Rhodri did not try to scupper anything last November. There was a communication problem, that much was clear, but it’s fanciful and wrong to suggest that Rhodri was trying to scupper a key part of the One Wales agreement.
By the way, I’m a big fan of Peter Hain (cue new thread….) but in what way is the Assembly petitions process his idea? That certainly isn’t my understanding.
“Cyntaf – we play the ball, not the man, around here.”
Indeed, but it is worth pointing out the continued thread that Len’s opinions have within them.
DH
“Ok, no explicit commitment to the referendum in 2007-11. But it’s still Labour’s tool, not Plaid’s, and the expansion of powers is done within Labour’s legislative boundaries, not Plaid’s.”
I think I more or less implied that. But it was Plaid who held the gun. They just got Carwyn to pull the trigger. Smoking gun and all that.
“There was a communication problem”
There certainly was Daran, there certainly was!
“in what way is the Assembly petitions process his (PH) idea?”
I wasn’t referring to a ‘petition process’. PH was the Minister who masterminded the GOWA2006 that contained the possibility of moving to Part 4. If I remember correctly he is Labour.
Daran,
Many thanks for doing what I intended to do rather more skillfully.
I fail to see how credibly Len can argue that the only reason we are having this referendum is because Plaid held Labour over a barrell over this. It was clear that a good many people within Welsh Labour are wholly comfortable with the idea of having Scottish style powers, and as you have pointed out, it was clearly a long term aim to bring forward a referendum on further powers.
Added to this – Len, please can you, with actual factual information, confirm that the petitions committee is the workings of Peter Hain, and praise be to him for that fact?
Cyntaf – “Many thanks for doing what I intended to do rather more skillfully.”
Surely you meant, “Many thanks for doing rather more skilfully what I intended to do”
Ok Len, accept I misread your sentences re petitions process
Right everyone, can we go back to talking about Alternative Vote, please?