Let me start by stating an undisputable truth; we live in a pluralistic society. Governments have recognised this in delivering our public services and in fostering multiculturalism. However, when it comes to how we vote for our politicians, we have been stuck with first past the post, and left with the patronisingly simple option of submitting a single cross.
Experts of voting behaviour in the past would have explained voting outcomes through ‘class’. Nearly everybody voted either Labour or Conservative. For example, during every election of the 1950s, at least 90% voted for the two main parties. Now barely two-thirds do. ‘Class’, thank goodness, is not what it used to be; it was only suitable in an era when society carved itself up into simple sectors: rich or poor, left or right. First past the post ignores the fact that in this modern age people define themselves in a multitude of ways. Put simply, the system is no longer fit for purpose.
The choice available to the public has been widened with the emergence of new parties, as well as some notable independents. Under the alternative vote, people will be able to exercise the choice available to them without wasting their votes. At the last election, most people ended up with MPs they didn’t vote for, who represented a minority of votes. Under AV, candidates will need to reach out to their entire electorate to ensure they are approved by the majority of their constituents.
This has to be a good thing at a time when trust in politicians is at an all-time low. I travelled to every corner of England during the last election campaign, and I was struck by the anger people felt towards the Westminster elite. People need a system which encourages greater legitimacy in the eyes of the people. This will also strengthen the influence of Parliament over the executive.
Electoral reform also means we will see a reduction of ‘safe seats’. We see too many constituencies where votes are taken for granted. It leads to arrogance on the part of the parties, and a consequent disengagement by the public. The whole point of politics is to serve the people, and the current system, now so obsolete, fails to encourage that public spirit.
Australia has employed AV as its method of choosing politicians successfully. We need it too if we want our political system to reflect the true wishes of our people.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
David Raw
Henry
7 Comments
It’s like the concept of Proportional Representation has been wiped from the party’s memory bank. AV is a lot of things, a gradual improvement on FPTP perhaps, but it will certainly not create a system fit for purpose.
Shirley, you have long been one of my heroines. I agree with much of what you say, however, my main concern is that people could end up with with no one getting their real choice and ending up with second best, literally. This is not to say that I am a proponent of first past the post either. Nick Clegg was right about one thing only, AV is a miserable little compromise.
What saddens me is that it appears that the Lib Dems have given up so much for this, respect, trust and principles. For the sake of a possible change in the voting system Lib Dems are propping up the most reactionary government this country has ever known. In return, the least they could have asked for is PR.
If the 30% who bother to vote decide to vote for a change to AV we’ll still all be voting for the same group of self serving, pocket lining hypocrites.
So really, what will change?
Strangely weak article – throwing the class angle into the equation has me puzzled (someone please explain) – does anyone think that AV somehow magically restores politicians to positions of trust? (Hmmmmm) – Shirley assumes that it gets rid of safe seats (debatable), thinks Australia loves it (really?) and rounds off with the a rousing ‘AV will be a system that truly represents the true will of the people’ (extremely debatable)…and er… that’s it……
I’ve seen miles better posts on here – you would think the case would and could be argued better than this.
I’m surprised Shirley cites Australia as a success for AV.
We do have to be careful here, as Australia’s politics is different from ours and their elections are distorted by their ridiculous laws which (a) make voting compulsory (hardly a ringing endorsement in itself for Australians’ love of AV) and (b) insist that voters must express a preference for every candidate on the ballot paper.
However, it’s worth pointing out that in Australia’s 2010 general election the Green party polled 11.76% of the primary vote (the Aussie name for first preferences) and was rewarded with one seat out of 150.
The 2 main political groupings – Labor and the confusingly named Coalition parties – almost dead-heated in the two-party prefered vote and received an exactly equal number of seats. A triumph for AV, until you look closely and find that, on first preferences, the Coalition parties were 5.3 percentage points ahead.
Fred Carver blogged on this site back on 1st Sept that AV is “utterly appalling”. Some people think it’s slightly less appalling than FPTP (I’m not one of them) but can we please stop telling people how great it is.
Old Codger Chris
Which would you prefer, a system that delivers a near dead-heat in seats, ignoring around 5% of the votes, or one that would have given a working majority to, in this case, the Australian Labor party? The Federal (not General) Election of 2010 resulted in the forming of a minority Labor government which in any case obtained more than 50% of the popular vote.
AV ‘s supporters claims it is impossible for the party which gains a greater percentage of votes cast to end up losing the election…and so it seems. Nobody seems to be telling people how “great” AV is except senior Liberal Democrat politicians (the Farron effect in particular is beginning to wear thin), but it has to be better than the system we’ve been wanting to get rid of for over 100 years.
@Sean
Sorry, I’ve only just come across your considered response.
We agree that AV isn’t great – you make some reasonable points in its favour although I’m not convinced that AV would always prevent the second most popular party from winning more seats than the most popular.
I’m not too impressed with second preference votes – and I’m certainly not impressed with the third and possibly, fourth, preferences of relatively few voters. Also, as the Electoral Reform Society used to point out before its sudden conversion, AV can sometimes be even more disproportional than FPTP.