So Labour will be holding a consultation process on the benefits of a secondary vote, compulsory voting and voting at the weekends then? Well, I think I can guess what this exercise will say:
“It’s a wonderful idea, I’m suprised we didn’t think of it before!”
To which I would answer: “Because First Past the Post gave you two landslide majorities!”
Assuming that they continue with the late Roy Jenkins’ recommendation of Alternative Vote, it soon becomes obvious why Labour are now warming to the idea. At the next election (working on the new boundaries) Labour will start off with 349 MPs, the Conservatives will have 210 MPs and we will have 62 MPs. Under a system of Alternative Vote, no candidate is elected unless they achieve 50% of the vote +1, so let’s see how many MPs achieve that in 2005
63 Conservatives; 134 Labour; 16 Liberal Democrats; 1 Plaid Cymru; 1 Scottish National Party
= 215 MPs out of 650 MPs
= 33% of all MPs
Or, to put it another way, Labour has 41% of the MPs needed for an overall majority.
And what about the other 435 MPs who do not have 50% of the vote +1? Well, that’s where the second vote comes in. Like in London, this asks “If your preferred candidate doesn’t manage to make it into the top two, which candidate would you like to support?” And when you put this suggestion through you get some very interesting answers indeed.
Take for instance, Wantage. Under the boundary changes, Wantage in 2005 voted:
Con 22,424 (43%); Lib Dem 14,385 (28%); Lab 12,467 (24%); Green 1,334 (3%); UKIP 796 (2%); Others 646 (1%),
But through the wonders of the alternative vote, Wantage undergoes a startling change:
Lib Dem 26,301 (52%); Con 25,112 (48%).
Yes, that’s right, Wantage goes Lib Dem for the first time in its electoral history. And the reason for this? Labour voters actively vote Liberal Democrat to defeat the Conservative on their second ballot, and when applied across the whole of the UK, the changes are even more stark
Labour 365 (+16 on FPTP); Conservatives 172 (-38 on FPTP); Liberal Democrats 89 (+27 on FPTP); Plaid Cymru 5 (+2 on FPTP); Scottish National Party 7 (+1 on FPTP).
I suppose it would have been ignorant of us to assume that Labour would think of a system that helped us without helping them
* Harry Hayfield is a Lib Dem activist and prospective local election candidate in Ceredigion. The numbers have been generated using the 2005 Media Guide to Parliament and UK-Elect.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
#interrail2025: Day 6 - turning for home... but how?
Two Lib Dem gains in council by-elections
Lochee Park - free family fun day #dundeewestend
Labour failing on social care reform
Photo gallery
Raven (1977) - by the writers of Children of the Stones
Learning from the Zen masters
John Grout
David Evans
Richard Flowers
expats
27 Comments
The Jenkins Commission recommended AV plus, not AV.
And London uses the Supplementary Vote, not AV.
The Supplementary Vote (which is what Harry describes with the “If your preferred candidate doesn’t manage to make it into the top two…” bit) is very different in its workings from the Alternative Vote. In particular, it opens up a whole complex minefield of second guessing and tactical voting that – whilst AV doesn’t abolish completely – is at least much more straightforward with AV.
Under the Supplementary Vote you also end up with far more ‘wasted’ votes because your second preference can only count if you second-guess correctly which two candidates will make it into the final two and vote for one of them.
I must admit the national prediction isn’t what I’d have expected in terms of the strong Labour showing.
I wonder what assumption was used about Lib Dem second preferences in Labour/Tory marginals.
Chris Phillips
Remember, AV is not proportional.
Whilst it is nice to see other parties considering changes to the electoral system, its still not really an improvement on the current system.
The only system which fulfills the requirements of being broadly proportional, having local representation and avoiding the horror that is the party list is STV.
AV+ may be more proportional, but it creates list MPs and consituency MPs in a way which is not ideal.
Personally I’m in favour of reform, whether it happens in gradual steps or one big leap. I’ve never understood the attitude of: ‘it’s a move in the right direction, but it doesn’t go far enough so I’m opposed to it’. Status quo or AV+? AV+ please.
AV+ is an excellent system. I think it is more appropriate for Westminster than STV; although I think STV is more appropriate for local elections and Euro elections.
AV is slightly better than FPTP, and should be accepted as a “stepping stone” to a better system if offered.
AV is an improvement to the FPTP, because it is a preferential voting system, but it actually still isn’t proportional representation, it’s just election by absolute majority with more choices. AV is like STV in single-member constituencies, and that’s probably why it has some appeal to Liberal Democrats, but STV isn’t the only voting system which provides proportional representation.
The problems with AV+ is the two types of MP and removal of constituency list for some members (or is that an advantage?)
STV just requires multi-member constituencies, which isn’t that strange – we used to have them in the UK (STV was actually used in at least two constituencies in the past – neither elected a Liberal candidate interestingly).
STV is also easy for voters to understand.
AV can be less proportional than FPTP. Adopting it runs the risk of creating aversion to all electoral reform thus reducing the chances of a proportional system.
This is especially true is Labour are seen to adopt it for party political reasons – cynicism about politicians is bad enough – this would further entrench the such views.
Our party needs to reaffirm its commitment to STV as the system which offers maximum power to the voter. It offers choice within as well as between parties, and empowers the voter to chose on a wider basis than just the party label. The fact that it is likely to produce a more proprtional result is another benefit.
AV only removes the worst excesses of tactical voting and retains the power of party patronage, and it would have produced a LESS proprtional result that FPTP in 1983, 1987, 1997 and 2001.
If Labour are proposing AV, then it is a retrograde step. All the evidence shows AV to be less proportional overall than FPTP.
Of course, the fact that it is less proportional to our benefit would probably see our principled stance for a more proportional system disappear should it come to the table. I suppose I should expect no better- so long as it isn’t our voters being disenfranchised it isn’t a matter of principle any more.
Harry – even in 1997 Labour voters wouldn’t have gone 100% for LibDems as their second preference. Likewise LibDems may have favoured Labour, but not by such big margins. So your 2005 Wantage example is highly unlikely to be accurate. And those assumptions have changed further still recently, with most commentators acknowledging we are now back to somewhere near a 50:50 split of LibDems second preferences to Labour and the Tories. Perhaps the London Mayoral elections may tell us more whether that is indeed the case, as might readers to this site. But I think the days of AV massively favouring Labour are long gone. Indeed, increasing anti-Labour tactical voting (there is evidence for this from the 2006 and 2007 local elections) and AV’s anti-incumbency tendencies may in fact help the Tories. Where I do agree with you though is the need to continue pushing for a system that is actually proportional and ensures votes counts across the country and not just in the marginal seats.
Agreeing with Malcolm on his analysis of the numbers (again) and with those saying we really need STV.
However, if AV is offered, we should accept it and asser that it’s a stepping stone not an end point and that STV should be implemented, AV is merely a slightly more fair version of FPTP and eliminates tactical voting, while also putting many more seats into contention due to the uncertainties of how the splits will fall (how would Tories split in a LD/Lab marginal? How will the 4-ways in Scotland work?).
AV is better than FPTP, and as a preferential system is be default a good starting point (if people get used to it then STV isn’t as easily dismissed as “too complicated”). We must oppose utterly attempts to foist Supplementary Vote on us (Bloody Stupid Voting System), and could cautiously accept Jenkins as better than current and fairer, but not ideal.
Incidentally, for those opposed to dual class MPs and similar, we used to both have multi-member constituencies (abolished in the 1947 Act) and “Knights of the Shire” representing counties, thus there were two types of MPs for most of Parlts history.
My preference for STV is both clear and one of the reasons I joined the Lib Dems, but any reform is a step in the right direction.
I guess we can’t make informed judgements until we see the proposals in detail. however – BUT the idea that importing Australia’s electoral system (or a variation of it) would improve turnout and boost enthuisasm for politics is as batty as a fruitcake! Firstly, frog-marched to the polls at weekends, Aussies hold politicians in as low esteem as in Britain. Secondly, my mum’s apple crumble is more proportional than AV! In several elections during the 50s and 60s the australian Labor party “won” elections in overall percentage terms, but ended up with fewer seats than the opposition. This happened again as recently as 1998. Thirdly the system is stacked against smaller parties, in favour of the big two. The australian house of “representatives” actually has the grand total of two (counting the conservative coalition as one bloc)parties represented there. Of course these are early days, and there is probably a desire on the part of some Lib Dems to embrace any sort of electoral reform as a “first step” towards PR. However, the flaws in any replacement for FPTP must be pointed out, indeed AV may prove to be a backward step for all those wanting to see a parliament genuinely representative of all shades of opinon in this country.
MatGB- AV is not a slightly more fair version of FPTP. Evidence from Australia and from extensive analysies by Open Democracy here show that is often produces substantially more disproportional results than FPTP.
It is in no sense more fair, although it is unfair to different groups than FPTP. So in what sense is it better? You rightly rubbish the supplementary vote so it can’t just be allowing further expresed preferences, but the results aren’t better, so what does it have to offer?
The problem is that Labour made a specific electoral promise on an electoral reform referendum in the 1997 election.
They lied.
Anon at 3.34: At what point did I say “more fair”? I said “better than FPTP” and “a good starting point”.
I have no interest in the notional “fairness” of a system and despite being a party member have no partizan attachment to proportional systems—I want STV. AV is a step in the right way and once we’ve got it we might be able to move further, opposing any and all changes would be spurious.
A preferential system eliminates guesswork in casting a non-expressive (rational and/or tactical) vote, and many studies show that that’s what voters do under FPTP, Duverger’s Law is vey apparent over an iterated series of elections. I dislike the need for tactical campaigns, dodgy bar charts and voter guesswork that FPTP (and SV) bring in, hence AV is better as it reduces (but not completely eliminates) the need to guess who’ll come in the top two.
It can mean voters vote both expressively and rationally at the same time, so we can see how many would vote Tory in the cities or would vote Labour in the SW, while still getting MPs with at least a notional local support base.
It’s not STV, but it’s better than what we’ve got, which means blocking it would be insane.
Compulsory voting is possible but a little unlikely I’d have said. But spreading voting over a weekend two days seems pretty sensible actually and on top of continued improvements in postal voting ought to increase turn out a bit. The example doesn’t seem correct and doesn’t seem likely to be reviewed in either.
The AV example that was.
One strategy would be to accept AV from Labour now, and extract multi-member constituencies from Conservaties later (who might under AV be desperate enough to accept PR). That would result STV.
Let’s get one thing clear, representation issues and participation levels are distinct, though interrelated, subjects – in this consultation Labour is confusing the two and trying to use the confusion as cover for it’s narrow and biased conlusions for what is in Labour party interests.
I’m for an election day bank holiday to encourage raised participation levels – especially as an activist! I don’t like wasting the weekend fighting with out-of-town shoppers on the high street as it is, but a beautiful spring V-Day is something to look forward to!
We need to celebrate our civic spirit and democracy, not relegate it to the same status as any other consumer choice.
If people won’t vote it is either because they think their vote is useless, usually because they don’t like the 2 1/2 options & think their vote is udeless, or because they are personally to lazy & uninterested to bother.
The first can be settled by PR – while forced voting merely treats the symptom & postal voting merely makes fraud easier. The second should not be solved – the vote of anybody that useless is not going to be a thoughtful support of good government.
“One strategy would be to accept AV from Labour now, and extract multi-member constituencies from Conservaties later (who might under AV be desperate enough to accept PR). That would result STV.”
This strategy would seem to rely heavily on blind optimism though!
If Labour want to talk about a referendum on reforming the voting system then lets discuss the referendum on Jenkins that never happened. Bear in mind that this idea is being pushed by Jack Straw who was one of the forces who blocked a referendum on Jenkins.
Jack Straw promised Paddy that he would “pull back” on his criticism of Jenkins – later that day Paddy’s diary records “Jack Straw followed with a complete hatchet job” and later “parodying the report and playing to the Tory gallery”.
Labour have broken their promises (both public and private) on vote reform once before. There’s no reason why we should accept a change of limited value on the basis of vague assurances that this is “a start”
… but surely anything that brings us more seats now gives us a better opportunity to obtain full STV / whatever later?
I’d welcome a move to AV, if only because it’s a step on the road towards STV.
Getting the voting public used to ranking candidates in order would neutralise one of the big arguments against STV – that any other system than putting an X against one candidate would somehow confuse the poor voters.
Forget the fine points for now. This will probably come to as much as Labour’s past interest in electoral reform.
However, it is evidence that Labour in power is feeling threatened. This is at a time when the Toreies are feeling less hopeless but still visibly shaky. So far, so good, I think.
those numbers seem to rely a lot on assumptions, I blogged about this a few weeks back if interested. Personally AV+ is the way forward and we should be pushing for that, its a very British compromise and unless we can get STV we should not go for AV.