In a move which even those who oppose the Alternative Vote have found bizarre, the NO to AV campaign has decided that its key message with which it hopes to dissuade voters from voting YES is going to be the apparent cost of changing from First Past The Post to AV. This is a strange strategic decision in itself, but it becomes even more curious now the ‘factual’ basis for the outlandish claims has been demolished at the slightest scrutiny.
The YES campaign wasted no time in putting the NO side’s claims under the spotlight, and they found that:
- There are no plans to use electronic counting machines – despite the NO campaign’s central claim that such counting machines will cost £130 million
- The NO campaign have significantly exaggerated the potential cost of voter education if AV is introduced – they based the costs on the adoption of the Single Transferable Vote in Scotland, which is, of course, a much more complex system than AV
And, of course, asking people to vote No in a referendum because of the cost of holding that referendum takes a certain kind of special logic to make sense of: whether people vote Yes or No, the cost of holding the referendum will be the same.
Here’s what Katie Ghose, Chair of the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign had to say:
Short on arguments the Nos are trying to claim we can’t afford change. After the expenses crisis we can’t afford not to.
Their make-believe machines don’t exist in Australia and won’t exist in the UK. Having given up on defending First-Past-the-Post the desperate No camp is descending into fantasy.
The No camp’s sums, like their arguments, simply don’t add up.
42 Comments
From Hansard:
‘• [House of Commons debates, 16 February 2011, 11:50 pm] John Bercow (Speaker): I HAVE to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.’
If they are that desperate I am surprised they haven’t attempted to add in the additional cost of the extra time the electorate will have to spend as they put no just one cross on the ballot paper but number the candidates in their order of preference.
Democracy does cost. Is it possible that Labour’s filibuster which doubled the number of days the Bill was expected to take could have added many millions of pounds to the expense of the Lords ?
I wouldn’t hold out much hope of an edifying campaign if the first TV debate on this morning’s BBC Breakfast News was any indicator.
The Yes representative tried to convince the viewers that AV would be more proportional than FPTP and would benefit smaller parties – both claims which are flatly contradicted by research, including that by the pro-AV Electoral Reform Society. (By the way I’ve just checked the ERS web page on AV and found that the list of objections to AV which used to be there has now been removed! So much for helping voters to make an informed choice!!)
The No representative (didn’t catch her name but she looked a bit like Julie Andrews) was rather more impressive, but she was trying to have it both ways – first claiming that AV didn’t have any impact on safe seats, but then insisting that AV would produce permanetly hung parliaments.
Never mind voter education – can’t somebody educate the two campaigns first? I really don’t want to endure three months of this kind of drivel.
Oops, I missed this one :-
“Here’s what Katie Ghose, Chair of the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign had to say…”
I see that Ms Ghose is chief exective of the ERS. Shouldn’t she be briefing her spokespeople on the ERS’ research before sending them on TV, to avoid spreading the kind of misinformation I saw on the BBC this morning?
Anybody who wants to know what the ERS REALLY thinks about AV (as opposed to the spin now on their website) can find out via the Wayback Machine :-
http://web.archive.org/web/20071231231932/http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55
Their conclusion :-
“…the Society does not regard [AV] as suitable for the election of a representative body, e.g. a parliament”
So the ERS are actively campaigning for a system which they believe to be unsuitable – while at the same time calling their opponents dishonest. Dontcha just love politics?
I hope the No campaign wise up to this one. The cost *is* a legitimate issue here. At a time when libraries and Sure Start centres are closing, why are we spending tens of millions trying to bring in a system which is deemed rubbish even by its supporters?
@ Stuart Mitchell
So basically you are defending the current system? To quote your favoured source of wisdom, the Electoral Reform Society:
ERS Policy on FPTP
The Electoral Reform Society thinks that, on balance, the massive failings of FPTP severely outweigh the advantage of its incumbency.
Cost is NOT a legitimate issue. The No campaign is producing a string of falsehoods about this. The only real cost, a campaign of voter education, might add up to say £20m i.e. 33p per person on a one-off basis.
AV is a vital first step on the way to STV. Once people are used to preference voting in single member constituencies, then moving to three or five member constituencies is pretty simple.
Admit it: basically, you just don’t want electoral reform.
Robert C –
1) ‘Cost is not a legitimate issue’ – Well given that this Coalition is determined to reduce everything that moves to the bottom line, quite candidly they have opened the door to this line of reasoning. Let me be clear, cost is not a good argument (it is not as if AV is short of flaws) but the idea that money is no object is just not going to fly right now.
2) Do you have any evidence that somehow AV leads to STV? It seems to be an article of faith for some, but I don’t know why.
3) There is no reason to treat the ERS’ word as if it were gospel truth.
4) There is no reason to think less of people because they don’t want AV. There is this streak in the yes argument which holds that somehow anyone who votes no can not have made a reasoned decision – they must be some swivel-eyed irrational.
5) Is there any hope of a debate on the issue. For all the talk about electoral reform, little has been made of how bad an advert this has been for another ‘new politics’ device – the referendum.
Robert C:
I’m well aware that FPTP is rubbish too. We’re spending a fortune for the privilege of choosing between two systems which almost everybody who is interested in electoral reform thinks are rubbish. It’s a farce.
“The No campaign is producing a string of falsehoods about this”
Yes, and you will notice that I criticised BOTH campaigns for hoodwinking the public. Aren’t you bothered about the misinformation being put out by the Yes campaign?
Incidentally, I’ve just looked and Yes campaigner I saw on TV this morning is called Jonathan Bartley. He describes himself as a “Green”. Ironically enough, when the woman rom the No campaign said that AV would be bad for small parties like the Greens, he shook his head in disbelief – obviously Katie Ghose hasnt bothered to tell him that the ERS’ analysis of the 2010 election said that the Greens would have had no chance in Brighton if AV had been used.
@Stuart Mitchell,
Why exactly would the ERS (and, indeed, a large majority of its supporters) be campaigning for AV if they didn’t believe that it was a better system than FPTP? They’ve been quite upfront that they’d prefer STV, but STV isn’t on offer. As for the cost argument – what a nonsense. In the long run, AV will not cost anything more – it’s the cost of the referendum which is the only cost, and if there hadn’t been a referendum the opponents of AV would be exploding with rage over that.
In a perfect world, you get to chose between good and bad. In the real world, half the time, you get the choice between the bad and the slightly better. I myself, though, would prefer the slightly better over simply stamping my foot and sulking, even if it is a ‘miserable little compromise.’
I just find it hilarious that they hired the ex-head honcho of the taxpayer’s alliance and people are surprised when he focuses on cost, without realising that cost is the least important of the issues involved in the referendum.
@ Stuart Mitchell
“ERS’ analysis of the 2010 election said that the Greens would have had no chance in Brighton if AV had been used.”
Really? I seem to remember that was the STV simulation. Do you have source?
Adam Bell – That was my first instinct. And yet, and yet……
I am a bit worried by the way that this referendum seems to steadfastly be avoiding the issue. I just get a sense that electoral system reform is one for the politicos and is not resonating very much with the public, yes or no. In that sort of environment questions of cost, rightly or wrongly, might well become important. I hope I’m wrong, but this is an issue-free zone at the moment.
AV will cost slightly more as the count will take longer. However, that shouldn’t be seen as a reason for voting No. Democracy costs money.
@ Duncan
“Do you have any evidence that somehow AV leads to STV? It seems to be an article of faith for some, but I don’t know why”
Once you have preference voting in place, the step to STV is much shorter, as I explained above.
I sure as hell know that if people vote down electoral reform now, they won’t ever get the chance again in the future. It’s now or not at all.
For me cost is not an issue at all. I’d be happy if it were 5 times as expensive it produced a proportional legislature. There is only one issue and that is the lack of proportionality.
AV is not guaranteed to be a step on the way to STV. It was hard enough to get the Tories to support an AV referendum can you really see them (or Labour) accepting an STV one? If the Lib Dems continue their decline in the polls they will have less not more sway even if the next GE result is hung.
The electoral reform Society were right in their original analysis and are dishonest to hide this viewpoint now. The very best they should say is that AV is an improvment on FPTP (although I still wouldn’t be convinced).
I now live in the South West Devon Constiuency, MP Gary Streeter, Conservative. In May 2010 he received 55.86% of the vote, 44.14% may as well have stayed at home. Under AV 44.14% of the voters in this constituency will still have wasted their votes. It is a miserable little compromise and I hope the public vote against it.
However the ERS or the Lib Dems try to spin it we are basically being given the choice between a rubbish system and a totally rubbish system. Clegg, for once, was speaking the truth when he called AV a “miserable little compromise”
Robert C – I have to say I can’t see it myself. If anything the example that stands out to me is France in the 1980s, a real cautionary tale.
Let me be clear – I don’t like this argument about cost. But the argument that it is a stepping stone to STV doesn’t seem all that strong either, with respect.
In terms of the share of the national budget, the cost of this referendum is peanuts.
Even so, if you think cost should be an issue, them presumably you are against a referendum on whether the UK should pull out of the EU or opt out of the Lisbon Treaty? Indeed, maybe we should dispense of general elections whilst we are at it?
“AV is a vital first step on the way to STV”
That’s an even worse reason (IMO) to support AV, not only is it not an improvement over FPTP (IMO), but it is intended to be a trojan horse for an electoral system I really don’t want!
@Geoffrey Payne
Absolutely, bringing cost into it is rubbish. Democracy costs money whichever way you intend to vote, I’ve seen nothing (of substance) to show that there has been excessive costs attached with the referendum or would be with the implementation of AV.
I just don’t get this debate.
STV is better than AV.
AV is better than FPTP, because it stops MPs being elected with 29% of the vote and discourages tactical voting.
Given a choice between AV and FPTP, reformers should plump for AV (even though we really want STV).
What is there to argue about?
What is there to argue about?……well how about another line from the original Electoral Society position……
‘AV is thus not a proportional system, and can in fact be more disproportional than FPTP’.
There is plenty to argue about methinks…..
On 10 O’Clock Live, Stephen Norris, opposing AV, claimed that the London Mayoral election is conducted by STV. Yet another lie from the No campaign. He also claimed that the Jenkins Commission said AV was less proportional than FPTP. Wrong again. Are the No campaigners planning to set a record for the most lies told in a campaign?
Under AV Caroline Lucas would have had a very good chance of winning Brighton Pavilion. It’s obviously hard to model but the likelihood is that Lib Dem votes would have gone by a ratio of roughly 2:1:1 to Greens, Labour and Tories. This would make the final round between Green and Labour and decided on Tory preferences – I actually think in Brighton that Lucas would have popped it. The alternative is that even more people vote Green 1, Labour 2 safe in the knowledge they can’t accidentally “let the Tories in” and the final round ends up being Green vs Con decided by Labour transfers.
The big story there is actually what AV would have meant in Brighton Kemptown and Hove, both of which were won by Conservatives on less than 40% of the vote.
Incidentally the ERS modelling of STV was the one that showed the Greens failing to win a seat in 2010, however it’s worth bearing in mind the Greens underperformed in the other East Sussex seats in favour of targeting Pavilion and didn’t even stand in several constituencies such as Lewes and Eastbourne, meaning the figures don’t really reflect what would have happened in a real STV election.
You’ve got to laugh.
Tavish Scott, Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, opposed a referendum that the majority of Scots wanted concerning an issue of huge importance on the grounds that it would cost too much to run during a recession, thus preventing his party from entering coalition north of the border, and yet Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, has managed to push through a referendum that no one really wants or much cares about concerning a piffling little technical tweak to the voting system purely to allow his party to enter coalition at Westminster.
@ Paul Griffiths
You’re right, the ERS analysis says that the Greens would have lost their MP with STV, not AV.
Had to do a double take when I saw this :-
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/?p=36
Note the graphic near the top of the page, with the label: “Alternative Vote (AV) (semi proportional representation)”
When even the ERS don’t understand AV, what hope has the average voter???
@ Simon G
“On 10 O’Clock Live, Stephen Norris, opposing AV, claimed that the London Mayoral election is conducted by STV. Yet another lie from the No campaign.”
No he didn’t – he said that he and Ken Livingstone had “considered” STV, among several other systems.
“He also claimed that the Jenkins Commission said AV was less proportional than FPTP. Wrong again.”
Quote from the Jenkins Commission: “AV on its own suffers from a stark objection. It offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, [such as] the ones which certainly prevailed at the last election and may well do so for at least the next one, it is even less proportional than FPTP… The Commission’s conclusion [is that AV] does not address one of our most important terms of reference. So far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, it is capable of substantially adding to it.”
“Are the No campaigners planning to set a record for the most lies told in a campaign?
Norris told no lies in the interview – he talked a lot of sense.
@ Robert, Foregone, Steve and others…
Obviously cost is not an issue in the sense that the bill has been passed so the money is already gone.
But I think the No campaign are right to highlight the cost issue (albeit they’ve done it in a cack-handed and dishonest way) because there is a genuine objection to be made here. The choice being offered is such a pathetic and trivial one, between two thoroughly rubbish systems, that the public will be thoroughly entitled to feel angry about the money spent on it at a time when they are being hammered left right and centre, and this can only help the No vote – especially when the public finds out that the people running the Yes campaign actually think that AV is garbage.
I know this is all ancient history now but the Lib Dems were foolish to accept a referendum on a system that even they think is rubbish. They should have accepted the Tories’ original offer of an all-party commission. The very *least* they would have got out of that would have been an AV referendum, and there would have been a good chance of getting something significantly better. This referendum, whatever the outcome, will put back the cause of true electoral reform by decades.
@ Stuart Mitchell
“They should have accepted the Tories’ original offer of an all-party commission.”
Labour pulled that stunt and look what happened: a big, fat nothing. Setting up a commission is a way of shelving the matter for years and not doing anything at all, as you well know.
“This referendum, whatever the outcome, will put back the cause of true electoral reform by decades.”
A completely nonsensical statement. How would not having any kind of referendum, which is what you are proposing, advance PR?
Come on, admit it, you basically don’t want electoral reform.
Weren’t these some of the same people who tried to get the referendum moved to another date – when, without any other elections on the same day, it would have cost more?
I don’t support the NO campaign, but I could – if I was so inclined – probably come up with a few simple arguments in their favour if I had a moment or two. What astounds me is that the arguments I have heard from them are pretty ropey and often seem to me to be misleading (e.g. on counting machines), and they wheel out the most tiresome, clapped-out politicians who’ve spent a lifetime in Parliament to speak on their behalf.
On balance, I think I’ll be spoiling my ballot, though I might still vote “no” as an anti-Clegg/ anti-coalition gesture.
Robert C: “Labour pulled that stunt and look what happened: a big, fat nothing.”
But there was a rather huge difference in May 2010: the Lib Dems held the balance of power, and could have sought a guarantee that the committee’s recommendations were acted upon. The Lib Dems had *huge* bargaining power but threw it all away far too cheaply.
“Come on, admit it, you basically don’t want electoral reform.”
Not at all, I just don’t want *bad* electoral reform. There will be plenty of people voting against AV who would deeply love to see PR.
“There will be plenty of people voting against AV who would deeply love to see PR”. Include me in!
FPTP is a rubbish system which at least means that all MPs are elected by a plurality. AV allows some MPs to be elected thanks to the pretence that the second – and possibly even the third preferences – of a relatively small minority, are of equal value to first preferences. Churchill called this the most worthless votes of the most worthless candidates – even allowing for Churchillian exaggeration, he had a point.
The Jenkins Report stated that AV does not guarantee majority support, merely majority acquiesence. I’m not convinced it even does that. Once the 50 percent point has been reached the result is declared and the second preferences of those who voted for a more succesful candidate are ignored.
In my area, the defending Tory MP should get some of his pals to give their first preference to Labour – if the Lib Dem beats Labour into second place, the second preferences of pro-coalition Lib Dems won’t count. That’s REALLY tactical voting!
I don’t understand the argument that second preferences are somehow less valid than first ones. Under FPTP, a lot of voters go straight to their second preference in the hope of making their vote count.
The number of votes that have value (mathematically speaking) under FPTP is much smaller than people realise. Take the example of Orkney and Shetland where Alistair Carmichael polled 11989 votes, his nearest opponent (Labour) had 2061 and the others had 5296. This means that the votes of the first 2062 LibDem electors had an electoral value (10.7% of the total). The other 17284 (including 9927 LibDem votes) had no value. Given the high number of postal votes, nowadays, the outcome in O&S, and in other safe seats, may already have been decided before the polls actually opened! (Admittedly, you can’t know this beforehand).
I don’t know the overall percentages but I would guess that no more than a quarter of votes had any value at the last general election.
AV raises the number of votes with value to 50% + 1 in every constituency. It certainly isn’t proportional, and I don’t like the system, but I prefer something that is arguably democratic to one that unarguably isn’t.
The febrile argument on cost from the `No’ campaign is a red kite that does not have wind it its sails.
GEs under AV will cost no more or less than the employment of the normal complement of counting officers to count the votes as would be the case anyway at the Town Halls.
It’s undoubtedly true that many people vote for their second choice under FPTP. It’s equally true that many vote for their first choice. You can’t build a sensible electoral system on trying to guess voters’ true intentions – you can only count votes on their face value. The face value of second – let alone third – preferences is arguable.
Under AV a winner is declared once the least sucessful candidates are elimated, ignoring the second preferences of a larger number of electors. The 50% +1 argument is based on the fallacy of giving a second choice to a minority of electors – a smaller minority than those who currently elect an MP in even the most marginal seat.
@Simon Horner
This sort of strategy is liable to backfire. What if the Tories are so successful in this vote-switching exercise that Labour comes close to them in the 1st round; then, in later rounds, enough 2nd preferences of other candidates go to Labour to allow the Labour candidate to win? And what if the opposition gets wind of it? It would not look good for the Tories: “Tories admit they can’t get 50% of vote; try to stitch up election by encouraging supporters to vote Labour.” Far more effective, and risk-free, would be for the Tories to get enough voters to vote for them in 1st preference that they’ll win on the 1st round.
Tactical voting campaigns under AV are too risky, and the gains too small, to be worth attempting. Any party manager who tried them would be an idiot.
Sorry, it was @Chris I was quoting above, not Simon Horner!
@Chris: AV gives a second (and lower) choice to ALL voters (who choose to use it). The second preferences of candidates who win are not needed: we’re not going to count them twice are we?
AV simulates a multiple-ballot election in a single ballot (hence its American name, Instant Run-off Voting). It assumes that in each round, the voters for candidates still in the running will still vote for those candidates: why would voters do otherwise? You imply that counting the second preferences of voters for candidates who are eliminated (because of smallest vote share) is somehow unfair, but it is only the same as what happens in a multiple-ballot election. What *would* be unfair would be to count the lower preferences of those who have voted for candidates who are still in the running: this would mean you are counting the votes of the runner-up twice or more. Translate this to a multiple-ballot scenario, and you can see exactly why this would be unfair.
AV is not PR and the vote on it is one of the few things the LibDems have gained from the coalition……. Not much of a victory as you prop up this hard right government of free market ideologues as they dismantle the post war consensus. Neither FPTP nor AV are fit for purpose and a change to AV will not improve accountability, scrutiny and the inordinate power of party organisations. Given that the, barely discussed, reduction in the number of MP’s and redrawing of boundaries will decrease the number of independent back benchers the whole package will produce even more centralised politics.
Overall our Parliamentary system is increasingly unfit for purpose and large swathes of the population feel no connection to conventional politics as it is so white, upper and upper middle class, Oxbridge and private school, male and metropolitan.
As this government operates in the interests of the groups of which it is composed this is going to lead to trouble and AV or FPTP will not make the slightest difference. I suspect you will find this when the campaigns start as the majority will be at best only slightly committed one way or the other and a substantial number will be indifferent.
Want to change things? Go for an election now only on the policies you are actually carrying out rather than the ones you were elected on. Or are you not really than interested in Democracy?