Quote from the 2005 General Election Manifesto:
We will extend this fair voting system (STV) to all local elections in Britain, and to the House of Commons …”
And, indeed, as a long-term aim that’s a very sensible move – but as we know both in Wales and Scotland you cannot suddenly change from one situation to another without first making progress.
Welsh Liberals (even as far back as 1910) advocated devolution for Wales and, thanks to the stages in devolution (the first Welsh Secretary of State in the 1960s and the Welsh Grand Committee), when devolution was offered in 1997 Wales accepted it. Similarily for our long-term aim of STV, we should recognise that the Alternative Vote is progress towards that aim. As such, when the Prime Minister speaks in the Commons today I shall be looking online for sites that are looking for supporters of AV to sign up to support a YES vote in a referendum.
So how would AV help the Liberal Democrats in a general election? Well, it just so happens that in May 2009, a poll was published asking questions that could build up a profile of second votes. Using that poll, here’s an alternative version of the swingometer showing what would happen in a general election on swings from 10% to Lab to 10% to Con under the existing first-past-the-post, and under the Alterantive Vote.
(Data calculated using UK-Elect on transfers calculated from ComRes poll of May 2009. The first section is FPTP, the second section is AV and the third section is the change between FPTP and AV by party.)
Now you might be thinking to yourselves, “Is this person seriously expecting us to accept a method of election that reduces the number of Lib Dem MPs elected!”. To which I would answer, “Yes”, because although (as the above table shows) the number of Lib Dems elected under AV is roughly a third, at the same time I hope that people realise in order to make a cake (of STV) a few eggs will need to be broken.
* Harry Hayfield is a Lib Dem activist in Ceredigion.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers Diary: The only estate in England with a breeding population of corkindrills
Renters Rights Bill long overdue
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
John Grout
Cassie
Peter Hirst
Joe Bourke
19 Comments
It has already been asserted by the government that they would never accept ANY change to the electoral system (including AV) without a referendum.
That presents a problem for people who see AV as a transitionary step towards STV (ignoring Lloyd George’s good advice that it is better to try walking over a chasm in a single bold step rather than two little ones) as a) a referendum on AV will be hard to mobilise support for (who really gets out of bed in the morning to campaign for something that would make such a marginal difference and could even lead to less fair votes?) and b) if the referendum was won it would be used as an excuse to rule out any further reform for the forseeable future.
Indeed, at least if we lost a referendum about AV we could assert that it was because the wrong system was proposed.
I don’t see what you’ve done with the numbers there Harry. You have assumptions about how votes will transfer? Is the “no swing” starting point the Comres poll, or the last election? Or different for the two systems, in which case the results aren’t comparable.
James, isn’t the choice here between a little step and no step, not between a little step and a big step?
“isn’t the choice here between a little step and no step, not between a little step and a big step?”
If AV is all that’s on offer, then it would be a choice between a little step to a slightly worse system or no step. I would vote for no step.
Joe – not necessarily.
It is a choice between a little step, no step at all, and taking it out of the hands of politicians altogether (which might lead to a little step, a big step, or nothing at all).
I prefer the last option. I don’t accept that it has less chance than the ‘little step’ option which would have to survive both parliament and a referendum amid accusations of ‘stitch up’ and it is the democratic option.
The Government is only proposing AV as an alternative to FPTP.
That being the case we should go for AV because:
1) Voters start to get used to preferential voting for General Elections.
2) It is then a simple step to argue that we need to have multi-member constituencies to make the result fairer whilst maintaining the constituency link (as in local government in Scotland).
If the maths is right, and we lose large numbers of seats under AV, then supporting it is stupid.
We want PR, AV isn’t PR AND it causes us to lose seats. Surely – this is a NO BRAINER folks?
As I’ve stated in a comment to a previous post and in a letter I sent to Nick Clegg, the Lib Dems should not back down on STV. AV or indeed AV+ is worse than a compromise in my view. Just what is it with some Lib Dems anyway? Why are they far too keen to compromise? Is it desperation?
If the Party compromises too much it’ll end up looking as mediocre and naff as the other Parties. Answer this – how many times have any of you heard in recent years from the public that the Lib Dems are just like the other Parties (which is not helped when locally Lib Dems get into bed with Tories and Labour in running Councils)?
If we’re not being accused of sitting on the fence, we’re now being accused of being something worse, i.e. part of the establishment.
I don’t see how the maths can be right – it seems to assume that nearly all 3rd party votes transfer to the tories.
James, I’m intrigued as to how you propose to take voting reform out of the hands of politicians altogether. Won’t we just all end up in kettles?
Unless a referendum takes place before, or possibly at, the next election, this question is entirely academic: there will be NO electoral reform.
Given this reality, it is better that Liberals state their preferred voting system as clearly and as unambiguously as possible (e.g. the Irish system). There is nothing to be gained in appearing equivocal about the matter. The Liberals really need to be seen to be putting forward a workable and easy to explain system.
Only in the unlikely event of a change that affects the next election should there be any discussion of the better of two evils. I do not think anything is worse than FPTP and I too am quizzical about the assumptions in Harry’s calculations.
I dont believe these numbers for a minute! Every other extrapolation of AV for the Commons tat I have seen shows us gaining about 1/3 not losing about 1/3.
Joe,
Come on. It isn’t beyond the wit of man to conceive of how this might be done. In the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Ontario they used Citizens’ Assemblies to make recommendations. Both Vote For A Change and Unlock Democracy’s Citizens’ Convention Bill propose something similar.
James – yes, and then the politicians largely ignored the results of the public consultations, and campaigned furiously against them in the referendum, winning the rejection…
How the heck can the Lib Dems lose, especially that much, under AV? This doesn’t make sense. Shouldn’t they attract a lot of second place votes? Surely Labour and the Greens can’t be massively preferencing Conservatives over Lib Dems, as such a result would suggest?
I agree with Gavin – we should push for what we believe in, which is STV. If we start to compromise before the start, we’ll never get anywhere.
Meanwhile, what is the Electoral Reform Society doing? Shouldn’t they be getting good publicity out of the current situation, as an independent group that actually knows about this stuff? Yet I’ve seen nothing from them in the media. (And yes I know that may not mean they’ve not tried.)
I think there’s a lot of foolish liberals who automatically assume a system of AV or PR will have a left-wing bias – ie labour and lib dem monopolising the vote.
Funny isn’t it – they very thing that the liberals argue against – a minority vote for a majority govt – would be massively exaggerated under PR. The power would go into the hands of the party who had polled the LEAST votes – in this case, the liberals.
That’s not very democratic either, is it?
by the way, the election of the BNP has just killed off any chance for AV or PR at westminster. It’s not going to happen.
Here’s my advice to the liberals – instead of trying to fudge the electoral system to boost the chances of those who come third and fourth – why not offer some policies that the public actually want – eg – a referendum on the EU constitution? an honest, grown up debate about the overwhelming powers of the EU over every single person in this country?
hhhhmmm that’s gonna be mighty tricky when the British public are euro sceptics.
Ask Vince – he knows – that’s why he writes for the Mail on Sunday.
But Ollie, it is very possible under FPTP for a minority party to have the balance of power (have a look around at all the councils classed as NOC).
It’s also very possible under FPTP for fringe parties like the BNP to get elected (again take a look at some local councils).
A few points. Firstly, there won’t be STV until one of the other parties give up on FPTP. That’s not going to happen anytime soon. AV by being less proportional should help the Labour party appreciate the benefits of proportional representation.
Secondly, in any referendum, the Lib Dems are going to lack resources and support to get their message across.
Thirdly, the Jenkins AV+ system is rubbish.
It thows up all sorts of anomalies – from two classes of MPs to parties winning constiuency seats and losing top-up seats as a consequence.
As for the comment that “which is not helped when locally Lib Dems get into bed with Tories and Labour in running Councils”
Er, this will happen all the time under whatever electoral system is used, but particularly under STV.
I agree that the Lib Dems should stand firm on STV. AV discussion gives opportunity for debate of such issues, but if the LibDems flounder on this they will confirm their reputation as “the Party of soft government.”
In addition, any move towards AV will wear out voter interest in electoral reform, thereby making it “a small step” followed by “no step”.