Noelinho.org

We are now less than two weeks from polling day, when a third of council places in England are up for grabs, as well as the Scottish Parliamentary elections. But also, in amongst that is a referendum to change our voting system from the existing First Past The Post (FPTP) to Alternative Vote (AV). Quite frankly, the debate on this referendum has been full of misinformation and lies from both sides, but I believe we should vote “No” to AV, for reasons I shall outline below, having quickly outlined the two systems.

FPTP is simple. The ballot paper contains a list of candidates for election. You place an “X” in one candidate’s box – the candidate you want to win the election. When all the votes are counted, the candidate with the most votes wins the election. That’s it.

Under AV, the ballot paper looks almost identical. The difference is in how you place your vote. Instead of placing an “X” in a box, you number your preferences, with “1″ being your first preference, “2″ being your second preference and so on. You can use as many preferences as there are candidates, as long as you use each number sequentially and once only. You do not have to place a number next to each candidate.

The count is also different under AV, in that it takes the form of rounds. A candidate must have a majority (50% + 1) of votes in any given round in order to win. If no candidate has 50% + 1 (or more ) of votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes are redistributed to the remaining candidates according to the preferences expressed on the ballot papers. If a candidate then commands a majority of remaining votes, they win; otherwise, the next-last candidate is eliminated and the cycle is repeated until a winner is declared.

Britain does not have a history of referendums. We held one about membership of the European Economic Community in 1975. We held referendums on devolved parliaments in 1979 and 1997. In Northern Ireland, there was a referendum on the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. These referendums came in the face of a firm voice in support of these causes from their various quarters – although not always a majority, as they did not all pass. But there are many other referendums that have been promised, or have had widespread support, but have not materialised. I think, for example, of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, another Scottish independence, another on the European Monetary Union. All three have had vocal support in recent years, but no referendum. Referendums are not part of the British way of life like they are in countries like Switzerland. Still, AV would be a significant change in the UK’s Westminster Parliamentary voting system, and so that is why there is a referendum on this issue.

Now, forgive me, since I have already said I’m voting against AV. You might wonder why I am now about to tell you why AV is so good. Well, I’m not, but this is why some people think AV is better, taken, in order, from the Yes To AV literature

1. MPs have to work harder to earn and keep our support
2. A bigger say in the election of your local MP
3. Tackling the “jobs for life” culture

Erm…and that’s it, taken straight from their website. Three reasons, and only three. Can you tell how unimpressed I am?

Ah, yes, so why vote against AV? It’s an obvious question. After all, it seems fair. The system seems elaborate, it sounds great that you need a majority of votes and the reasons above are decent, surely? So what’s my problem? Well, forgive me, I have a few:

MPs Already Work Hard

So, the number one reason we are told to support AV is because MPs will have to work harder to earn and keep our support. Do they not do this already? The Electoral Reform Society point out that two in three of our MPs did not win their constituencies with a simple majority of the vote. That makes me think that they must have worked hard and fought for every vote they could get in order to win. For those who won commanding victories, is it also just possible that they did so because they had worked hard and this was recognised by local voters? Or do we subscribe to the view that people vote for donkeys according to their colours, and if so, why bother voting at all? Bottom line: MPs aren’t lazy and they already work for our support. AV will not mean they have to work any harder than they already do. Candidates already have to appeal beyond their “core” voters. Just look at the way poll rating go up and down for evidence of that!

AV Isn’t A Game-Changer

Okay, so in the strictest of senses, AV does give you a larger say over the election of your MP. You get to write a number instead of a letter, and you get more than one choice. But let’s be honest, it’s hardly a game-changer, is it? The same parties will still end up winning almost the same seats! it’s a veneer of polish spread thinly over an old table. But the table is still old, it isn’t suddenly new and fresh. It is still old. It will still creak. Many of the things that were wrong with that old table are still wrong with it. A coat of polish does not change that. Yes, on the face of it, AV may give you a “bigger say” (it’s “larger”, by the way, can we use correct English please?), but it is estimated to affect no more than 5% of seats, so in reality, your “larger say” is still pitifully small. It seems hardly worth making such a change for something that will make a marginal difference FPTP can’t be quite as broken as the Yes campaign tell us when the results it produces would be so similar, no?

AV Doesn’t Tackle “Jobs For Life” (Or Expenses!)

So, two out of three MPs didn’t command a simple majority at the last election. Well, do you know what that means? One third of MPs did. And you know what that means? One third of MPs represent safe seats that will still be safe seats under AV, come what may.

Furthermore, even for the MPs who didn’t receive 50% of the vote in their elections, many will have fallen only a little short of the mark and, in practical terms, live in fairly safe seats anyway. Only one-third of Parliamentary seats would ever change hands under AV or FPTP. So, jobs for life is not an issue solved by AV. Favoured party members can always pick up safe seats, regardless of whether AV or FPTP is used.

Finally, there is no correlation between an MPs majority and their implication in the MP expenses scandal and subsequent expenses payback. So when the “Yes” campaign say AV would have stopped the expense scandal, they are talking complete bollocks – and not of the 15th Century variety on this occasion. Let’s not perpetuate misinformation to pull on people’s heartstrings and malice against Parliament.

No One Actually Wants AV

Okay, so some people don’t like FPTP. I get that. It’s not a perfect system, I admit. There are many flaws. But no democratic system is perfect. There is no perfect system. It is unattainable. Still, one crucial element in any voting system is surely that it has the support of the people using it and telling other people to use it, no? The “Yes” campaign is hardly a glowing endorsement of AV. Most “Yes” campaign supporters do not want AV. They want Proportional Representation (PR). They are voting “Yes” because they don’t like FPTP, not because they want AV. This is not the way to deal with constitutional change.

I personally have some issues with PR, but at least PR has much more widespread support. It would be far more appropriate to have a debate and referendum on PR than on AV. Let’s debate what people want. Nick Clegg called AV a “miserable little compromise”. He’s right – for once. So why is he supporting AV? He doesn’t want it! Which brings me on to an important point…

If You Vote For AV, It Means No PR

Constitutional change isn’t something that happens every year. It doesn’t come around very often. When you vote for constitutional change, you are stuck with it. People who support PR have two options to take:

1. Vote for AV and accept they will not get PR for a very long time
2. Vote against AV and fight for PR instead

If we vote for AV, we will be stuck with it. We won’t hold one election and then switch to PR. That’s not how constitutional change works. So, if you want PR, you should vote against AV and fight for PR, because you’ve got more chance of getting a proper debate on it this way. It’s easier to vote “No” and argue we had the wrong debate than to vote “Yes” but then say you actually meant “No”. That argument will not wash.

AV Is Unpopular

Three countries use AV currently: Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Australia. Fiji are getting rid of AV. Six out of ten Australians want to get rid of AV and use FPTP. In Australia, voting turnout under AV was so low they made it compulsory to vote. Hardly an endorsement of the system, is it? AV is a lame duck system. It’s not the right way forward.

The BNP Argument

The BNP argument has actually been used by both sides. It’s a ridiculous argument, whichever side of the fence you stand on. Neither system will let the BNP in. The Electoral Reform Society – who have bankrolled the “Yes” campaign – claim that AV eliminates the risk of extremists like the BNP winning seats.

Firstly, let me make a point. The BNP, whether you like them or not, are a legitimate, legal political party. You don’t like them? Tough. They are not illegal, therefore you have to put up with them. Secondly, political systems should not be chosen so as to overtly discriminate against one party or another, no matter how much you dislike them. I hear Liberal Democrats complaining. Well, they can shut up. FPTP was not designed or picked to discriminate against Liberal Democrats. In fact, Liberals used to do quite well out of it, didn’t they? You should not pick a system on the basis that it’s bad for party you don’t like, period.

Secondly, how many BNP MPs are there in Parliament? Oh, right: none. Case closed on that front then. Again, AV is said to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist. Switching to AV will not solve the problem of BNP councillors either – council elections in England would still operate under FPTP, not AV, and you would expect to find BNP councillors regardless of voting system anyway, whether AV, FPTP or PR, as wards are so small anyway. That’s life.

The IQ Argument

This is perhaps the most disgusting argument of all – the idea that because AV is a little more involved, clever people should support it because it gives their vote more value. This has, alas, been accompanied in some quarters by people saying stupid things like, “wouldn’t it be good if we introduced IQ tests, that people have to pass before we let them vote?” No, you elitist *******.

That said, it does highlight something that strikes me – AV is a political anorak’s voting system. It doesn’t eliminate tactical voting at all, it just changes the tactical voting game. It places it underneath the radar, but it’s still there. Only a proportional system completely eliminates tactical voting.

So, that’s why I’m voting against AV, so what do I actually want to see? What’s the way forward? Well, I’ve not completely made my mind up, but here are a few ideas:

• Let’s get rid of this nonsense about cutting down the number of MPs. Our MPs are overstretched already, we don’t need less of them.
• Let’s reform the second chamber. The Lords is more broken than the Commons. I propose sacking all the Lords and replacing the chamber with a fully-elected House, using either a single national ballot or STV.
• Let’s continue to use FPTP for the House of Commons. It provides strong government in Britain – which is the major advantage of FPTP. Balanced against a proportionally-elected second chamber, this would encourage more consensual policy.
• Repeal the Parliament Act. It is, to my mind, the most unconstitutional Act of Parliament on our Statute.
• Introduce fixed-term Parliaments (with a no-confidence clause, obviously)

So, there you have… Noelinho’s guide to why you should vote “No” on May 5th!

Tags: AV, Electoral Reform, FPTP

This entry was posted by Noelinho on Friday, April 22nd, 2011 at 09:00 and is filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.