Over at The Guardian’s Comment Is Free site, Lib Dem shadow home secretary Chris Huhne argues Labour has got it wrong in proposing a referendum on the Alternative Vote: only the Single Transferable Vote will remedy the unfairness of the present system. Here’s an excerpt:
[The Alternative Vote] is very similar to first-past-the-post in two key respects. Because it is based on single constituencies – a virtue for its proponents, who say they prize the constituency link – the parties continue to select one candidate each, and the voters only have one choice for each party.
That means that in the majority of parliamentary seats, the important decision about who should be the MP will continue to be taken in party caucuses rather than at the public ballot box. Although most MPs will have to reach beyond their tribal base to get the second preferences of other parties – an important discipline on unpleasant characters and behaviour – the choice for the voter remains very limited.
Compare AV in this respect with the Liberal Democrats’ preferred option, the single transferable vote (STV), which is the system used in the Republic of Ireland, Scottish local government and in most Northern Irish elections. Each multi-member constituency has three to five members of parliament, so that each party has the incentive to put up two or more candidates. The voter therefore has the choice not only of party, but also of person.
Such a system is clearly the most liberal: it gives the maximum opportunity to the voter to express their preferences, and reserves the minimum power to the party machines. It is perfectly adapted for the world of the MPs’ expenses scandal. Unlike AV, voters can stick with their party and vote for a “clean” MP or for an MP who shares their particular enthusiasms. With AV and first-past-the-post, voters have to change party to punish an individual MP. …
Conservative opposition to electoral reform gives the lie to David Cameron’s pretence that he wants real change, and Labour’s half-hearted commitment to the alternative vote is just a deathbed conversion from a party facing a historic defeat at the ballot box. Not only does AV fail to give voters the power they should have, but it also fails to remedy the unfairness of the present system.
You can read Chris’s article in full here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
West End ward surgeries today #dundeewestend
Speculation over Labour's benefit cuts
Michael Crawford paints a picture of the young David Hemmings
Being a good conference guest
Robin Bennett
Mike Peters
Chris Lewcock
Roderick Lynch
11 Comments
So Chris WHY did you vote for it last night? Brown should have been pushed to include a vote on more than one type of system, but you failed.
I wonder if voting with Brown last night, as added strenght to the Tory posters of “vote Yellow get Brown”.
It is interesting to note that our STV amendment was supported in the division lobby not merely by Liberal Democrat, Scottish Nationalist, Plaid Cymru and SDLP MPs but also by two former Labour Cabinet Ministers – James Purnell and Andrew Smith.
David – I don’t know WHY you’re asking the question which Chris Huhne has already answered.
Chris has said AV is a marginal improvement on the current system, so voted for it. But AV still falls a long way short of a proportional system which Lib Dems will continue to push for.
You are factually wrong to say the party failed to push for a vote for a proportional system. The Lib Dems moved an amendment last night. Here’s the link.
It was defeated by a combination of Labour and Tories – which adds strength to the Lib Dem posters of “Vote Red or Blue if you want the same old politics”.
Of course, a cynic would say that every party voted in whichever way would best serve its own interests.
I am, oh, 80% confident that we will utterly regret supporting this piece of cynical spite from a dying party. (By which I mean, the fact that it is cynical spite is beyond doubt, but there is still a fairly slim chance that events will somehow fall out so that taking the bait doesn’t damage us. I live in hope rather than expectation).
I don’t think it matters very much, as long as we do not give in to AV if we are negotiating for a coalition. That is something I am concerned about.
Whichever way we jumped we were damned. Vote for AV and we’ve compromised our pro-PR principles, vote against and we’d be “opposing reform”
AV is perhaps marginally better in some circumstances and it breaks the link with history so any propsed change to PR cannot be countered with “but this is how we always do it.”
It’s a toughy. Made no less tough by the fact the Tories will just ditch it in May anyway.
Did anybody other than me see the interview on Channel 4 with Huhne, Hain and Pickles?
Eric Pickles came across as even more rude and bizarre than ever: his Oliver Hardy immitation was uncanny! But Chris didn’t exactly come out well by trying to talk over him. They both looked like two boys jockying for attention; a bad case of struggling to appear to be the alpha male.
I saw it. Pickles was rude but Chris didn’t help himself by being ungracious
I so made the right choice in the leadership ballot.
Interesting piece here. I have to say I don’t really agree with either Chris Huhne or the government. What really counts is the rather dull area of parliamentary procedure. We need elected select committee chairmen, less government domination of the parliamentary timetable and a codification of the royal prerogative. Electoral reform is a red herring!
One Trackback
[…] linked to it here, and you can read the article in full […]