We have never really been able to call the UK a true democracy. We have an unelected second chamber, made up of Lords Spiritual (Bishops), Lords Temporal (those granted hereditary peerages and selected by unelected party leaders) and Lords Surprising (Messrs Sugar and Prescott). The electorate in this country is allowed to vote for a change in government, so far, only at times that suit the government of the day and we have no codified constitution that outlines, irrevocably, a list of rights and freedoms.
The most obvious and fundamental issue with our democracy, however, is obviously the extent to which the votes that we cast at the ballot box one Thursday every four years or so bear little relation to the make up of the government the next morning. For years, we as Liberal Democrats, the only party for serious political reform, have campaigned on the promise of bringing about reform to an election system that produces unmandated governments. An electoral system where a vote in Stockton South or Eastleigh is worth more than a vote in Richmond or South Shields. We’ve promoted the cause since we’ve been old enough to realise that this system was at it’s very core, undemocratic and broken. How then can we now decide to tarnish this goal?
Alternative Vote is not a solution, everyone knows this. Alternative Vote is not the answer to our enfranchisement problem. We’ve been told, however, that it is a rung on the ladder that will eventually lead to a voting system which will enfranchise, to the same extent, all UK citizens old enough to vote. This assertion, the idea that once we’ve won the referendum then we can get to work building for the next change to the electoral system seems completely without base or merit.
I understand that sometimes to achieve an end goal there has to be some compromise on the way, but how possibly can we put our political power behind an electoral system that the Electoral Reform Society has said “can be less proportional than First-Past-the-Post”? We’re not proposing reform to the system we’re proposing slight variation. What possible platform could we begin to campaign on? When someone asks if the system will mean their vote will mean more under the new system we’ll still have to ask them where it is they live before we can give them an answer. When they ask for the merits of the new system, all we’ll be able to say is that it means they’ll be electing the “least disliked candidate” rather than the “most liked”, something which I’m not entirely sure is a good thing.
AV represents no reform. AV represents change for the sake of change, an accusation which people have levelled at our party since its formation. What possible advantages does either result in this referendum give either our party or the electorate as a whole?
If we win the referendum then we’ve managed to gain enough support to change the electoral system once. There is no advantage for the electorate since they still have a disenfranchising electoral system that’s only difference is a different name and the use of more ink. There is no real advantage for the Liberal Democrats as we’ve put our political backing to a referendum that will have little to no impact on the electorate as a whole. The idea that if we win the referendum then we’ll possibly be able to try for further reform in the future is flawed on two levels. Firstly, a coalition government where we may hold some say in the future is only slightly more likely under AV than FPTP. It’s been 40 years between coalitions this time so why would we expect that to change? Secondly, the British electorate are famous for being politically apathetic (partly due to the electoral system), the only reason there may be interest in this referendum is on the back of huge political scandal and the idea of the “need to clean up politics”.
Many will say that if we win the referendum then people will remember a famous victory for the Liberal Democrats. Many then are blind to the intelligence of the electorate. I agree, there could be an increase in our popular support at the next election because we got something done, but this will be completely undone by the fact that this will lead to only a tiny gain in seats and the electorate will realise on Friday morning that neither their vote at Referendum nor at Election really mattered.
And, god forbid, if we lose the referendum, the only memory that the electorate will have of the Liberal Democrats in government (despite whatever good we may do to soften the Conservative impact) will be that of a failed referendum. People may vote against it because they don’t understand the new system, people might vote against it because they believe in the old system and people could vote for it because it essentially is the old system. There will not be another referendum on electoral reform for many years to come.
Why then I ask, in the wake of the fact that no good can come of a Yes or No result, are we continuing to lend the weight of the party to an issue that helps no-one? Why do we not cry from the parties position’s in government that this referendum does not go far enough? Why don’t we put more weight to guarantee a fully proportional, empowered second chamber? If we can’t get a referendum on proportional politics than why waste the little political capital we have on a meaningless referendum rather than reforming the rest of the system?
We seem to be blinded by the idea of getting something done, without thought to what the results will be and whether they will even matter.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Jago Hazzard on the complicated history of Turnham Green
Suitably inspired, I return to Suffolk
Investment, investment, investment.
Definitely a Lib Dem conference!
Ed Davey tries to name all the Lib Dem MPs while on a roller coaster
Fraser's West End ward surgeries later today #dundeewestend
What's next?
Simon R
Nigel Jones
Roland
Joe Bourke
Matt (Bristol)
48 Comments
I agree with this post 100%
AV is ‘a step’ but a vital step nonetheless!
http://web.me.com/minard/A_Splash_Of_Liberal_Optimism/Splash_blog%21/Entries/2010/7/3_‘Step’_-_The_Language_of_AV.html
For a long time, I too was dismissive of AV. But my experience in the recent General Election completely changed my mind. I had failed to appreciate how bitterly frustrated people are at being unable to vote in accordance with their conscience and beliefs, but are forced to fetter their choices according to how they think other people will vote. Preferential voting is a significant gain, and we should certainly campaign for it.
It was abundantly clear in the opinion polling post April 15th-when Nick Clegg`s star soared- that it was due to the new style of doing British politics that he was advocating the Country, based on openness,honesty and a pledge to clean up Labour`s mess!
A pre-requisite to the new style of cleaning up politics is to make voting more fairer.
AV is the only option on the table as it was stated in the `Coalition Agreement’ that underpins the ground that this `Coalition Government’ stands on.
I like most Lib.Dems. would prefer to see a real PR alternative on the table i.e. STV,that has been long advocated by the constitutional historian guru Vernon Bogdanor,the Electoral Reform Socity and has been the preferred choice by the Liberal Democrat Party, since 1988.
The writer omits in his lucid discussion of purity of PR and his advocacy for an elected second chamber by this means, that the `Coalition Agreement’ also contains a pledge to reform constituency population weightings across the board.
One imagines that the Constitutional Bill will contain both a signalled Referendum on AV (not PR) that goes hand in glove with the Tory pledge for constituency boundary reform.
AV is a good example of how we need to play the coalition in our favour to harness support rather than haemorrhage it. It’s making that critical distinction between ‘a step’ towards – the actual ‘destination’ that better defines us (where we can’t get our own way in one go). So AV is ‘a step’ towards better representation of the people in parliament, so support that and support us to the ‘destination’ or proportional representation of the people by STV.
I too have recently had a change of heart re: AV. Firstly, even though I think it is a pig’s ear, having learnt more about it, I can see that it has improvements on FPTP. And secondly, I think that, given our current situation in the coalition, we simply cannot afford to lose this referendum.
And a side point: is it me or are we beginning to see a more critical tone, vis-a-vis the coalition government, of blogging on this site?
Of course AV is going to be a compromise, but I see some pretty crucial advantages in AV.
Voters are rightly frustrated about MPs in safe seats who simply don’t have the need to even respond to the concerns of those who aren’t likely to vote for them – as long as they can cling on to their 30-40% of the electorate, they can safely ignore the rest. AV will at least mean that the political discourse within all but the very safest constituencies has to change, as MPs have to canvass voters for their second preferences, too, which ought to mean that they have to attempt to appeal to a more diverse range of interests. Whatever the long-term goal may be, this strikes me as a crucial argument in favour of AV, however lacking in real proportionality the system may be.
@JohnM
What if, as the writer suggests, that we win the Referendum, get more votes at the next GE, but fail to see this translated meaningfully in terms of seats? Won’t the correct conclusion of the electorate be that their vote for the referendum and at the GE was a waste?
AV does nothing to improve proportionality – but then if that was the ONLY concern we’d support a list system instead of STV.
AV DOES mean that over 50% of voters get an MP that they voted for, so it is more representative aka “fairer”, hence we’ll be campaigning for “fair votes”, not for PR.
STV is the best system for fairness with proportionality, but it’s not on offer. So as we can’t have fair and proportional at present, let’s at least have one of them, then campaign for the other as well at the next GE.
Meanwhile, we should push for STV at local elections, where the agreement has a few words but no substance, meaning it should be up for further discussion.
I do kind of agree that AV isn’t, technically, that much of a better solution, although I’m not quite so dismissive of a requirement for 50% of people to have to show support for a candidate, in anyone’s mind 50% has got to be more democratic that 33%.
What I think you have missed, and doesn’t get picked up by analysing just the details of AV is the way it could affect people’s habits when choosing a candidate. Generally, at the moment, people have a tendency to have a fixed idea of who they are going to vote for, they don’t necessarily base this on anything more than a feeling that they probably agree with that party more, or that they think they have a better chance of beating the person they don’t want in government. If we are lucky they may take a bit of time to look at the policies of their preferred party, but it is just as likely, if not more so, that they will just get all their opinions from the paper they choose to read.
Having to rank the candidates is likely to lead to people feeling that they need to actually know what each candidate stands for (i.e. what each party stands for) to be able to decide if they prefer one over the other. They no longer have to just say ‘oh I prefer this one’ they have to decide what order they prefer them. They may know their first and last choice, but to know any in-between they will have to decide which parties policies relate most closely to these first and last choices so they can order them.
Now I’m sure this may not be as widespread as I’d like, but any chance that people will be voting in a mroe informed manner has to be good for politics.
Also, the fact that they can specifically state that they don’t wan’t a certain candidate, by voting them last and knowing that their vote will continue to be used against this person whether their first choice gets in or not, may indeed lead people to vote for who they actually do associate the most with first, rather than who they think has the best chance of beating their most hated candidate. An end to tactical voting we won’t see, but a shift away from it I do think we will.
AV was Labour’s tool for locking our the Tories for good. Now it looks as if the Tories are going to use it against Labour. What goes around comes around.
“This assertion, the idea that once we’ve won the referendum then we can get to work building for the next change to the electoral system seems completely without base or merit.”
This is the part of the post I don’t quite understand. There seem to be no argument as to why it is baseless or without merit.
It clearly does have merit, even if AV is only slightly better then people will be more likely to believe that change to the voting system is possible and that there is a party fighting for it. So long as it’s made clear that AV is not the preferred final solution, but the only one that could be brought in to the coalition agreement I think people will understand that it was a compromise. Compromise is not a bad thing, people in general understand the idea of compromising when you don’t have the remit to enact what you truly would like to do. We are used to this in our daily lives… so long as it is made clear this what is being done.
I think to say it’s PR or nothing would be more damaging in the publics view. They would see it as childish and possibly as the Lib Dems finding an excuse not to try and change things at all when they have a chance to at least do something.
@mpg
AV is no guarantee of more seats for the Lib Dems at the next election – but campaigning for STV on the back of AV might. Many other things will depend on what votes we get but clarity of our aims and destinations will elevate us beyond the coalition compromises and blurring.
In Ben Stephenson’s opinion we shouldn’t have entered a into a coalition agreement with the Conservatives (see this author’s profile.)
There are doubtless plenty of other LiberalDemocrat supporters like him who would prefer to wait for another chance to reform the voting system, but quite frankly by that time they will all be dead. Many Liberals who wanted negotiations that never took place some 36 years ago will be dismayed to see the approach being taken here to the forthcoming referendum on the Alternative Vote.
AV is just the beginning and will hopefully secure the stronger position Ben argues we should have but that at present simply isn’t there in terms of the number of seats gained using FPTP.
He should learn from history!
Perhaps worth repeating a point made in previous AV-related threads on LDV, namely that while the “AV-is-a-step-towards-STV” argument may play well with party activists, it should not be a (prominent) part of the public referendum campaign. We need to sell AV on its own merits, or risk muddying the waters.
I believed, as my article profile shows, that we should enter government coalesced with whoever it was that gave us the best chance of enacting serious political reform.
I appreciate that a lot of people see this as a step on the road to electoral reform but I honestly can’t see how this works in the context of a population at referendum. I know STV was never on the table, I know that in this particular government there was never any chance of a referendum on PR but that doesn’t mean that we should endorse a system that can be less proportional than the joke that we currently use.
Surely, rather than “compromising” on a core policy point we should be using the limited political capital we have within the government to guarantee widespread reforms, for example STV for local elections (as someone mentioned earlier) and total reform of the House of Lords. My argument was not PR or nothing, it was PR or wider political reform. People in this country will remember the contributions of a LibDem party that reformed local elections and forced the election of peers, so the argument that if we don’t back AV then people will see it as the LibDems being “childish and finding excuses not to change things”. This would have been a better idea than a potentially lethal vote on AV, something which we don’t even believe is the solution to the problem.
Also thanks for taking the time to read the article and share your views!
AV provides the opportunity to state preferences between candidates. STV provides both that and multi-member constituencies. For that reason, AV should be seen as a clear step from FPTP towards the final goal of STV.
Proportionality isn’t the point. AV can be more proportional than STV, or less proportional. However, the real point of AV is that it has one of the two features required for STV. Those two features are “preference voting” and “multi-member constituencies”.
There are advantages to preference voting. Voters can express their true preferences. They can vote for their preferred candidate, and also cast a tactical vote. That makes the intent of the electorate much more transparent. It’s worth campaigning for over FPTP, because it’s a clearly better system.
Once we’ve had one or two elections with AV, we’ll be able to see more clearly the consequences of introducing multi-member constituencies. The sizes of those constituencies will be a matter of compromise. Larger constituencies give more proportionality, but make the ballot paper longer, and reduce the constituency link. Voting is easier with smaller constituencies, and the constituency link is better, but they’re less proportional. In the extreme case of small constituencies, with one member, you’re back to Alternative Vote. In fact, some constituencies are likely to be that small, in sparsely populated areas like the Western Isles.
Anyway, the point of campaigning for AV is that it DOES get us that first feature of STV (preference voting), and simplifies the debate by avoiding discussions of constituency size, or other methods of achieving proportionality like AV+. Better to have those two debates separately, since people don’t like change that they don’t understand, and the risk is they’ll stick with what they know rather than risk a more complex change.
Historically, there are plenty of precendents for this kind of staged change – emancipation of slaves, votes for women, gay rights, and so on.
“Surely, rather than “compromising” on a core policy point we should be using the limited political capital we have within the government to guarantee widespread reforms, for example STV for local elections (as someone mentioned earlier) and total reform of the House of Lords.”
I don’t see why supporting AV would mean that the Lib Dems have any less ability to fight for these as well?
In my mind it’s pretty simple. I see AV as better than FPTP, even if only by a small degree, therefore something to be backed. Remember the role of government is to govern in the best interest of those who voted them in. If AV is on the table, and you believe it is better than FPTP then I don’t see how anyone can morally argue against it. If you don’t believe it is any better at all then that’s fair enough, people will always disagree over such things.
@Alex – completely agree, aside from encouraging more positive campaigning (if you attack your opponents unfairly then you won’t get their party’s second preferences), AV would also encourage voters to find out more about the candidates’ aims and ideals rather than just voting on party preferences or tactically.
Hyperlocal site Saddleworth News did great interviews with most PPCs in several neighbouring constituencies and I would like to think this sort of localism in action could spread to other constituencies. http://www.saddleworthnews.com/?tag=general-election-2010
Of course STV is by far the fairest system, but AV is still a significant improvement. It achieves one of the two major advantages of STV, namely preferentiality: it allows voters to express additional preferences and thereby avoid the need to vote tactically for fear of wasting one’s vote. It doesn’t achieve the other major advantage of STV, namely proportionality, but it is likely to be more proportional than the current FPTP system. (1997 was something of an anomaly because of the dramatic rise in anti-Tory sentiment; analysis suggests most elections would have produced a more proportionate result under AV).
And structurally, AV is half-way towards STV. Once we have AV and preferential voting is entrenched, it is arguably a smaller step to redraw boundaries (which needs to be done periodically anyway) to create multi-member constituencies. Remember: AV is STV in single-member constituencies.
AV is a lot better than FPTP (admittedly not difficult!), because it allows people to vote with their conscience for the candidate they genuinely support, reasonably safe in the knowledge that their vote will not be wasted if they cast a 2nd pref for a candidate better placed to win. Purists who reject AV while vainly wishing on a star for STV shouldn’t underestimate the disservice they would do to many voters by throwing away a chance of preferential voting. People hate having to vote tactically.
Junking prefential voting for parliament in favour of STV for local elections? I apologise in advance for my comments as I know localism is a holy grail for many LDs, but I really don’t give a toss! National politics is what matters to most people, because that’s what predominantly affects our lives.
If we lose the AV referendum, we can kiss goodbye to ANY reform of Westminster voting for a generation – it will be easily argued that the people have spoken and are happy with FPTP.
I could have torn my hair out reading Mike Smithson on pb.com saying he’ll probably vote no. And to be quite honest if there are many other party activists who give the AV campaign only lukewarm support (or even oppose it), then I’ll probably relinquish my support for the party because to throw this chance away in the futile hope of “something better around the corner” would be, IMHO, not only idiotic but shameful. I like and support Nick Clegg, but he can’t do it by himself…
Paradoxically (considering I support our coalition with Cameron) if that happens I’ll probably end up voting Labour… Politics is a funny old thing!
@Ben Stephenson
“What possible advantages does either result in this referendum give either our party or the electorate as a whole?”
Ben, from reading your article and your comment in this thread, I’m a bit baffled. You clearly feel passionately about this, so I’m sure you’ve read the other threads on this subject.
But whatever you’ve read about the advantages of AV, you don’t seem to have taken any of it in.
First past the post (FPTP) is bad for two reasons:
(1) It massively under-represents any party other than the top two.
(2) It means many voters feel forced to vote for a party they despise, in order to keep out a party they hate.
As you say, AV doesn’t fix the first issue.
What AV does fix is the second issue.
You don’t mention this, so presumably you think it’s irrelevant, and I couldn’t disagree more.
I cannot count the number of times I’ve met the jibe, that a Lib Dem vote is a wasted vote (or SDP or Liberal or Alliance). I have deep scars scored into my subconcious from the memories of 1983. A hated government, the Tories, were kept in power because the electorate thought Labour would be such a catastrophe. Again and again and again, voters told me, we would vote for you, but we can’t risk it. We’ve got to keep the far left out.
AV would change that. It would even start to change the way people talk about elections. If you go over to ConservativeHome now, you can find threads that have nothing to do with AV, where people say, casually, “Well, if there’s AV, I’ll vote Conservative first, then UKIP second.” And another says, “I’d make that UKIP first.”
This will be revolutionary. And it is one of the main arguments of some Tories *against* AV. One leading Tory activist has said that, if AV is introduced, there would be a significant rise in the UKIP and Green vote. As a result, the support of the main two parties would fall to a level where one-party rule would no longer be possible.
He hates coalitions. He thinks that’s a disaster. I love them, but I would. I’m a Lib Dem.
(Note. He also thinks AV would inevitably lead to a proportional system)
Do I want to see a rise in votes for UKIP and the Greens? Well, if that’s what people really want to vote for, yes I do. Not just because it’d lead to coalitions and end the abuses of a two-party duopoly. But because, if that’s what people want, it’s an outrage if they feel the system won’t let them vote for what they truly beleive.
And, for those who want to keep FPTP for themselves, they can. Just use your first preference and no other. But please don’t force the rest of us to do the same.
the problem with the AV referendum is Tory areas probably won’t want it and Labour areas won’t trust anything the Lib Dems say.Therefore Labour support is vital, but I doubt you’ll get it.
I totally agree with Ben here. By making a referendum on AV his price for getting the Lib Dems into a coalition Clegg has blown any chance of us ever getting anything more meaningful, and the saddest thing is that it’s so hard to make a good case for AV that even if it’s marginally better than fptp you’ll probably lose the referendum anyway.
AV has enormous advantages for the individual voter, compared with FPTP in single-member constituencies:
The voter can state his first preference, without imperiling his/her chance of influencing the final result. These first preferences can give a better idea of the spread of opinion, rather the skewed picture where tactical voting is employed in FPTP.
It should result in MPs who most of the electorate consented to, rather than have the present situation where most of those who voted could despise or hate the elected MP from Day 1.
It should result in less “safe seats” where parties can ignore the electorate, and governments are tempted to behave arrogantly..
It won’t necessarily give better proportionality, and it will take the electorate some time to understand the changes.
I don’t think “a small step” necessarily puts at end to further reforms. Experience in Scotland and Northern Ireland seems to indicate that once away from FPTP, other systems can follow.
Ian
AV has enormous advantages for the individual voter, compared with FPTP in single-member constituencies:
The voter can state his first preference, without imperiling his/her chance of influencing the final result. These first preferences can give a better idea of the spread of opinion, rather the skewed picture when tactical voting is employed in FPTP.
It should result in MPs who most of the electorate consented to, rather than have the present situation where most of those who voted could despise or hate the elected MP from Day 1.
It should result in less “safe seats” where parties can ignore the electorate, and governments are tempted to behave arrogantly.
It won’t necessarily give better proportionality, and it will take the electorate some time to understand the changes.
I don’t think “a small step” necessarily puts at end to further reforms. Experience in Scotland and Northern Ireland seems to indicate that once away from FPTP, other systems can follow.
Ian
AV is a useful compromise but imagine if the 1st preference votes were consolidated across the country (or by region/nation) and used to populate the House of Lords. To me that’s the logical next step suddenly every single vote throughout the country really does matter. AV is fairer and is a first step that’s why LibDems should support it.
Why are we campaigning for AV?
Because:
a Nick said so
b Lib Dem Voice wouldn’t go against Nick if he was found to be one of Pol Pots murder squads
c Dave needs Nick to win something
d The Liberals need to show their independence from the party they merged with in Coalition
e It allows the Tories to get their gerrymandering boundary changes through
Surely the question should be:
Why aren’t we campaigning for STV?
@ AJ
“The problem with the AV referendum is Tory areas probably won’t want it and Labour areas won’t trust anything the Lib Dems say.Therefore Labour support is vital, but I doubt you’ll get it.”
Your analysis is absolutely correct.
The Blue Tories offered the Orange Tories AV as a quid pro quo for the annexation of safe Labour seats. That’s why the Orange Tories will have to support the whole package. Clever Dave again. Labour supporters such as myself who are essentially sympathetic to PR will treat the referendum on AV as a referendum on the gerrymandering of Labour seats and will vote against it. And if it is not gerrymandering how is it that Charles Kennedy’s seat of Ross, Skye and Lochaber will be retained despite only having 50,000 electors? If it is not gerrymandering why is the bill being rushed through without waiting for next year’s census or a concerted programme of electoral registration? The boundaries will be redistributed on the basis of millions of missing voters. If you want to know why it would choke me as a Labour supporter to vote for AV now read Tristram Hunt on the subject:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/19/nick-clegg-florida-here-we-come/print
@Alan Milnes – now that is a good idea! 🙂
I rather agree with Gorge Kendall when he writes that the author of this article has been unwilling to take in any of the advantages of AV – and you don’t have to look much further than IainM’s recent comments to see how reluctant are some to seize this chance of change.
Undoubtedly AV has to be seen as a gradualist approach, but If they were to read some of the excellent posts on this thread they wouldn’t find it “so hard to make a good case for AV” – at least it’s an easy system for voters to understand, even if it isn’t fully proportional; and the answer to counter those peddlers of falsehoods in most of the tabloids is that voters who love FPTP so much can keep it to themselves by voting only for their first preference (in most cases Conservative) candidate, whilst the majority in every constituency will be getting on with the chance to be represented.
@MacK
“Labour supporters such as myself who are essentially sympathetic to PR will treat the referendum on AV as a referendum on the gerrymandering of Labour seats and will vote against it.”
If I may say so, that does not make sense. If the Bill passes – in other words, if we get a referendum on AV in the first place – then the redistribution of seats (I do not accept the term ‘gerrymandering’, but I recognise that this is a complex and contentious issue and I won’t try to cover it here) in the Commons will be a fait accompli: you’ll be stuck with the new boundaries either way, whichever campaign prevails in the referendum.
There referendum will (and must) be about AV and only about AV. Your choice will be: accept the redistribution of seats under AV, or accept the redistribution of seats under FPTP. There is, unfortunately, no option to reject the boundary changes.
So I ask you: which is worse? On which system would you prefer to fight the 2015 election?
I feel that the AV system is a real improvement over the current system because at least it means the first choice votes cast should more accurately reflect the will of the people. Currently any party who does not have a realistic chance of winning a seat is likely to lose a lot of votes due to their supporters voting for the least bad of the two leading candidates, rather than for who they really want to win. Obviously Av is not a complete solution, or even close to it, as while it makes the wishes of the people clearer, it fails to ensure allow those wishes are reflected in parliment. Still I do not believe that a failure to get everything is a reason to reject a chance to get something.
Because we leave tilting at windmills to others.
Because neither Labour nor the Conservatives (with small number of honourable exceptions in both parties) will support the idea.
Because we can only get there in steps.
Because you are only bringing up the point to try to sow the seeds of discord.
As far as the notion of agreeing that it’s not the end solution but pushing it forwards because any change to FPTP is a good change then I’d just say this. Just as any junior partner in a coalition, the Liberal Democrat element of the coalition only has a certain number of cards to play. We can’t do it all, so my central argument is why waste the political capital that we do have on something that is no where near good enough. Why not use the hand that we’ve been dealt to enact serious political reform (some of things that have been mentioned earlier) that will be remembered by an electorate which could then lead to a strong backing for overarching reform to the electoral system.
There are some comments in this thread that raise issues with FPTP that will be addressed by AV, when in actual fact they simply won’t:
” Currently any party who does not have a realistic chance of winning a seat is likely to lose a lot of votes due to their supporters voting for the least bad of the two leading candidates, rather than for who they really want to win.”
Alternative Vote will produce a parliament elected on the notion of the “least bad of the candidates rather than for who they really want to win”. Votes that don’t preference the winning candidate still do not count so effectively 49.9% of people that vote might not be represented in Parliament.
I agree with a lot of what has been said, AV is, obviously, a better system than FPTP. My argument is that it’s not the best use of the parties political capital and that I think we may be misleading ourselves by calling it a step. We can talk about how it’s not the end goal or solution until we’re blue in the faces but do you think the electorate as a whole, to whom a referendum seems like a tool only used for very important questions, is going to think of the system as a “step”? Changing the electoral system isn’t something you do lightly so why would people think of the new system as anything other than a well-thought out, long-lasting solution?
If people vote “No”, that will be interpreted as the electorate supporting FPTP. Having another referendum on voting reform will not only be resisted more by the 2 main parties, it will be unpopular with the electorate as well.
What this means then is that we MUST win this vote or we will be stuck with FPTP for a very long time.
Is AV better than FPTP? Yes it is. It is more proportional than FPTP in most scenarios, albeit not in all.
AV is also more similar to STV, so it would be harder to argue that STV is “too complicated” in the future.
Anyway if you want to debate this further come to the Hackney Lib Dem garden party on Sunday;
http://www.hackneylibdems.org.uk/pageout.php?id=2
Naah. I would like a step further away from a two-party state.
We used to have two parties in opposition whereas now we have one.
I used to believe Libdems views on electoral reform were about making the system fairer. More democratic. Now I realise it’s just another way to help grab power. No way am I going to assist them with that,
Lets be absolutely clear, whatever the wording on the referendum, a vote against AV will effectively be a vote to keep FPTP. Lose this referendum, we won’t get another on STV or anything else.
Did the Scottish nationalists and Plaid Cymru vote against devolution because they wanted full independence? Of course they didn’t. Let’s live in the real world.
@Keith Jones
I understand what you say, however, I support a Party List form of PR in which votes are cast for parties only and would make boundaries (and boundary changes) otiose in terms of influencing the election of candidates. That is why I will not vote for AV which is, in my view, a poor exchange for a rushed ‘gerrymandering’ of boundaries redistributed on the basis of millions of missing voters which will be inimical to Labour’s chances. Nor do I accept that there is any necessity to reduce the number of MPs — the population of the U.K. was 59 million in 2001 and is estimated to be in excess of 62 million in 2010. We should not be reducing the ratio of parliamentary representation if the population is increasing. Of course, as you say, boundary changes will be extant in 2015 so Labour will lose out whatever happens. That still means that there is no advantage for any Labour supporter to vote for AV, even those sympathetic to PR. Then again, the AV referendum will provide the perfect opportunity for all voters to punish the Orange Tories for their coaltion policies. For these reasons I think, and hope, that you will lose the referendum. However, if a Party List system was on offer, it would be self defeating to vote against that in a referendum because a majority ‘yes’ vote would mean the effect of boundaries and boundary changes on the outcome of future elections would be removed, which would be ideal.
@MacK
What a shame that you see the AV referendum purely in terms of perceived advantage to the various parties. What about fairness to the voters at large? In recent elections many of your fellow Labour supporters in seats that were unwinnable by Labour have felt forced to vote Lib Dem / Green / Respect in order to keep the Tories out. If the AV referendum is won, there will no longer be any need to vote tactically and Labour supporters can put Labour down as their first preference without fear of giving their least favourite party an advantage. If the AV referendum is lost, all voters will be stuck with the current system and all the arguments about wasted votes. The only options will be AV or FPTP; no one seriously seems to be arguing that FPTP is fairer than AV (and -1997 perhaps excepted – AV would probably be more proportional than FPTP) so if you truly believe in fairness it would seem absurd to campaign for a “No” vote. If you want to punish the Coalition, you can do so in next May’s local elections and subsequent elections.
Another advantage of AV that tends to get overlooked is that candidates will no longer be able to rely soley on their core voters. They will have to try and be attractive to a wider range of voters in their constituency (in hope of picking up 2nd prefs). I’d say (arguably) this means that an elected MP will be more representative of the whole constituency than under FPTP.
It would be interesting to see how much AV would change the way elections are fought and won.
@ Ralph L
“What about fairness to the voters at large?”
That’s why I support a list system where the electorate votes solely for the party and every vote truly counts.
“What a shame that you see the AV referendum purely in terms of perceived advantage to the various parties.”
And the Orange Tories don’t?
“In recent elections many of your fellow Labour supporters in seats that were unwinnable by Labour have felt forced to vote Lib Dem / Green / Respect in order to keep the Tories out.”
And those Labour Supporters now feel bitterly betrayed and will punish you at the referendum!
A post with considerable honesty (more than I’ve seen in many posts on this topic at other parties’ sites – and I’m not a Lib Dem). The more I look at AV, the less I think it will help Lib Dems, and indeed it may even harm them. At the last election there were well over 300 seats (perhaps nearly 400) which would have been decided on no more than first preferences and second preferences of the minor parties such as UKIP, BNP, Green etc. Lib Dems would have won only 13 of these seats. The split of second preferences from those minor parties would tilt the results in many of the remaining constituencies. This is before AV, of course.
Under AV, voters get a free chance to register a protest vote as their FIRST choice. They can do this safe in the knowledge that if that candidate gets eliminated, their second or later preference for a big party will still count, but that by tactically putting the choice first, their “nudge” vote will be counted and heard. This becomes confusing for major parties, who previously could ignore minor party voters as fruitcakes or racists or watermelons or what ever other terms of abuse they cared to hurl. Now second preferences from those voters could decide the election: ignore them, and you risk letting the opposition win. That will tend to radicalise the platforms of major parties. Try as I might, I find it difficult to imagine Lib Dems credibly pursuing votes from English Democrats, UKIP and BNP: even the Green vote would at best split depending on local personalities. There is a significant risk that Lib Dems could end up worse off under AV than under FPTP, as politics polarises.
I’m firmly of the view that Lib Dems should aim for the big prize of replacing Labour as the important left-centre party in British politics. I’ll admit that is because personally I do not consider that Labour should ever be trusted with power after the damage they have wrought in the last decade to the future of the country. It’s a message that Lib Dems will have to find a way of conveying if they are to supplant Labour. Part of that is through showing competence in government, but part is also through NOT agreeing with Ed or Ed, and through being prepared to highlight as many aspects of the damage Labour has done as possible.
Agreed. Its idiotic to support a change that is not an real improvement and then expect that once its passed you can just move towards a better system.. The existing system has lasted for one hell of a long time, people are resistant to change, and the new system will not be proven faulty for a quite a number of election cycles. Adopting AV means no further chance of change for a generation at least.
Not only that buy you’ll be labled hypocrites or nuts,, why would you run on and support a change to a system you didn’t want in the first place, voters will punish you for a lack of credibility and consistently..
We in Canada have the same issue, when ever someone brings up Proportional voting some asshole (in our case generaly a Liberal) brings up AV as a way to cloud the issue of voting reform, knowing it will change little and kill any hope of further advancement of PR for a long time.
Good luck , demand a truly fair system and don’t compromise.
Hi,
‘it means they’ll be electing the “least disliked candidate” rather than the “most liked”’
They won’t. That’s not an accurate description of AV. If you have three candidates, for instance, it is perfectly possible that the least disliked candidate is the one with the fewest first-preference votes. That candidate will be eliminated before the other two, and thus has no chance of winning under AV.
Btw, if you have a situation where the candidate who is second-placed on first prefs ends up beating the first-placed candidate, who is to say that the candidate who won most first prefs was the “most liked” candidate? The fact that people chose to give their first pref to the candidate doesn’t show us whether they like him or her a lot or only a bit, only that they prefer him or her to the other candidates. It might be that some voters’ second prefs express a stronger degree of liking than other voters’ first prefs.