Chris Rennard, Liberal Democrat peer and the party’s former Chief Executive, writes today at the Guardian’s Comment is Free about the myths behind MPs’ opposition to AV.
The first myth, Chris says, is that the alternative vote system could lead to more hung parliaments, which has led to the Conservative hierarchy ferociously defending first-past-the-post:
The major misconception about the alternative vote system was expressed by former Tory minister Peter Lilley in the debate on the Queen’s speech that followed the coalition agreement. He supported the coalition “because a hung parliament makes it necessary”. But he said: “I would not support changes to our voting system that would make hung parliaments the norm.”
Chris writes that “AV generally makes hung Parliaments less likely, not more likely” and illustrates:
It is a great myth in some Labour circles that if the SDP-Liberal Alliance had not attracted so many votes in the 1980s, then Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock would have defeated Margaret Thatcher. This is not so, because the evidence shows that the second preferences of SDP-Liberal Alliance voters split between the Conservatives and Labour in the same ratio as the country generally split between the Conservatives and Labour. Similarly, Lib Dem voters’ second preferences split more in favour of Labour than the Conservatives when the country in 1997 (and in subsequent elections) split significantly more in favour of Labour than the Conservatives.
He points out that neither Labour nor the Conservatives – nor indeed many trade unions – would dream of using first-past-the-post for their own elections and notes that the Conservatives’ favoured voting system would have made Michael Heseltine their leader in 1990 and Ken Clarke their leader in 1997.
Chris closes with an apt reminder:
AV will, however, make it easier to get rid of MPs and bad governments who cease to be representative of voters and who cling on only because of split opposition that is divided by the unfair first-past-the-post system.
You can read the full piece at Comment is Free.
6 Comments
“The first myth, Chris says, is that the alternative vote system could lead to more hung parliaments, which has led to the Conservative hierarchy ferociously defending first-past-the-post:”
hold on there, according scientific literature it is considered to be the likely outcome in britain, albeit a minor addition to a trend already occurring due to greater plurality in voting trends.
Interesting piece by Chris (who should have been running the yes campaign).
But it totally demolishes the Farron/Huhne argument that AV will save us from Tory wickedness/slavery/the empire etc.
leaving aside the fact that I think this argument has been very damaging (it encourages Tories to come out to vote and comes across as if we are only wanting the change to do down the Tories) it is ironic that it is just as nonsensical (if not as dishonest) as some of the no claims
AV or a similar preference voting system might be a good way to elect a party leader. It does not follow that it’s a good way to elect MP’s.
I agree that AV would not have stopped Thatcher in the 1980’s or reigned in Blair in the 1990’s. That might make some NO campaign arguments look foolish but in itself it’s a damned good reason to wonder if AV is worth a toss.
All this article points out is that AV is not about fair votes. If the closing comment means the third and fourth preferences of people who voted for minority parties will make it easier to unseat incumbent MP’s then I accept the point. Not much of a plus though.
I’m disappointed that so much of the argument on AV has been about the outcome and todays issues and personalities. The real plus for the individual voter, especially those without firm party allegiance, is that it gives him/her a FULL vote in any outcome.
I think it could well result in bigger parties (including the LibDems) receiving less First Preferences. Perhaps some politicians would then be less arrogant in presuming their real levels of support.
The Labour and Conservative politicians on the no-side seem to have convinced themselves that AV is a form of proportional representation, and will therefore lead to hung parliaments.
The ignorance of the mainstream media has a hand in this. For years they have been describing AV as “not full proportional representation”.
Jedibeeftrix,
The evidence is very mixed. In Australia there have been very few hung parliaments. In the UK it is predicted that it might slightly increase the number, but nobody really knows.
This doesn’t explain the vehement opposition from Tories and Labour people to this very modest reform, or their claims that it will make coalitions “the norm”.