From today’s Independent on Sunday:
To try to calculate the case for different voting systems by party advantage (or disadvantage) is not only wrong, it is also a mistake. Although we can guess how past elections might have turned out under AV, based on opinion-poll evidence of voters’ second preferences (as we report today, there might have been a hung parliament in 1992 and a Lib-Lab deal might have been more possible last year), people would behave differently under a different system.
Now it is time, therefore, to consider the philosophical or pure case for the alternative vote. In this, we commend the Yes campaign in focusing on the voters rather than the politicians. From the voters’ point of view, being able to number candidates in order of preference is a significant improvement on voting with an X. It allows people to express a full range of opinion and ensures that they can express a choice between any pair of candidates who may end up topping the poll, instead of, as under the present system, having to guess how others might vote…
AV is a good change on its own terms. It ensures that voters have an equal chance to influence the outcome in their constituency, and to express their preferences honestly so that they can be counted, even if they do not support the winning candidate.
We accept that many people will be worrying about other things. The immediate pressures of rising bills and job insecurity have pushed many longer-term, more abstract priorities, such as constitutional reform and action on climate change, down the agenda. We understand that what could seem a technical change to the voting system does not grab people’s attention, but it should do.
The alternative vote is not perfection, or a magic solution to the problem of disillusionment with politics. Yet it is an important step towards a better democracy that empowers the voter, and so deserves our wholehearted support.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Tory Leadership dirty tricks?
Mystery at Witchend is Went the Day Well? and Seven White Gates is A Matter of Life and Death
The long role of the Jewish community in Liverpool
Labour's post-election (non-)honeymoon: The Week in Polls
September now
Farron photos
Joe Bourke
Peter Martin
Mick Taylor
Michael BG
Jennie
13 Comments
They are completely right.
I don’t believe the Liberal Democrats are going to do very well under AV. Many will choose to punish LD MPs next time round. Furthermore, it will take away many tactical votes from the LDs, and the “two-horse race” campaigning tactic. As has been pointed out, it can have a perverse effect on electoral outcomes – though I believe that these effects are fairer than the status quo. And the argument for reform for me was never because it would favour one party over another.
I think the biggest change is that politics will be brought into the mainstream as candidates are forced to appeal to everybody rather than building a cult of support, as is so often the case. I don’t care which parties it hurts or helps anymore, as electoral reform is far more important than partisan politics.
@ Tom – “I don’t believe the Liberal Democrats are going to do very well under AV.”
I don’t believe the Lib-Dem’s are even going to win the AV referendum, and it won’t be because of any particular back-lash against the the party, it will simply be because there is very little interest from part or people in AV as an electoral system.
I don’t even believe that Clegg ever believed it could be won, it was merely a necessary promise of a deliberately unappealing choice in order that the tory-right and lib-left would agree to the coalition, and that Clegg see’s the promise of electoral reform being made good by introducing PR into the Lords, where in my opinion it makes most sense.
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/the-av-referendum-%E2%80%93-what-does-clegg-really-want/
@Jedibeeftrix
Clearly you’ve been ignoring the polls and the tremendously activated, motivated and organised grassroots Yes to Fairer Votes campaign then.
http://www.yestofairervotes.org
Rich – ‘I think the biggest change is that politics will be brought into the mainstream as candidates are forced to appeal to everybody rather than building a cult of support’
Here in Watford where the mayor is elected by AV, Dorothy Thornhill has assiduously built a cult of support amongst a section of the local population.. Granted, that may be as much to do with the post being a mayoralty than a seat in a parliament, but AV has done nothing here to bring politics into the mainstream as you suggest. To be clear, I’m not for a moment suggesting that Thornhill has done anything wrong here, but AV has most certainly not had the effect you describe.
I will certainly be voting no, but gut instinct is that the no will win 55:45 on a poor turnout.
Whether the Lib Dems would benefit under AV is open to debate at best.
I struggle to decide whether the existing rotten system, FPTP, is worse or better than the proposed rotten system, AV.
@ George W. Potter – “Clearly you’ve been ignoring the polls and the tremendously activated, motivated and organised grassroots Yes to Fairer Votes campaign then.”
I have no doubt that the yes campaign is working hard, however there appears limited party support for AV and while the people are closely tied in the polls the yes vote feels ambivalent to me, from people who aren’t firmly committed.
The referendum argument should not be swayed by perceived party advantage. A democratic electoral system should not determine the election outcome. We should not choose a system biased towards two party politics (or even three).
Arguably the electoral system does not create a stable government. Rather it is the way politicians respond both to those within their own party and to those in the other parties that determines whether or not a Government is stable.
Democracy may not be perfect, but trying to design the system to engineer the result is less perfect. The electorate has shown that it can and will respond tactically. This should not be necessary.
Both FPTP and AV are seriously flawed. Our democracy is too important to accept this referendum as the main vehicle for the debate on electoral reform.
We should choose a system where every vote counts and tactical voting is redundant. ‘Direct Party and Representative Voting’ does this, and much more besides.
Google ‘dpr voting’
@stephen J
Your first 2 paragraphs are spot-on.
DPR is also called the weighted vote. It would give some MPs a vote of more than one in the Aye and No lobbies of the Commons and others a vote of less than one, dependant on the national vote-share of their party in the election. But it ignores the fact that MPs do more in Parliament than vote, and the Governing party or coalition needs some of its MPs to be ministers. And what happens when an independently minded MP votes against his party?
Nice idea,but impractical.
@Chris
“I struggle to decide whether the existing rotten system, FPTP, is worse or better than the proposed rotten system, AV.”
AV is much less rotten, because the voter can both vote as he/she really wants, and influence the result, whatever it is, as well.
You could say it allows the voter to both to exercise power and be wholly honest! Surely a great advance on FPTP.
@Ian Sanderson
To take, as an example, the constituency I live in which is typical of many. Conservative MP always re-elected with less than 50% of the vote. Lib Dem nearly always second. History of some Labour supporters undoubtedly voting Lib Dem tactically.
Under AV I might have a Lib Dem MP, hooray! And the under-representation of Lib Dems in the Commons is thus reduced, another cheer!
My Lib Dem MP claims to have the support of more than half the electorate – but much of that support is second preference. My Conservative neighbours may rightly feel aggrieved that their candidate lost despite having more first choice votes than my candidate.
It’s an interesting philosophical point, especially if the first preference gap between Conservative and Lib Dem candidates was a wide one, on similar lines to Australia’s recent election where one party was very clearly ahead nationally on first preferences but was pulled back to a dead heat by AV. In fact, Australian experience proves that one cannot predict the effect of voting systems on votes cast – they have more of a two-party system than we do with smaller parties greatly disadvantaged.
FPTP and AV are both thoroughly bad – I’m just not sure which is worse. I don’t accept that reformers should vote yes to AV just because it’s the only alternative on offer. Unless one lives in a tiny community with no political parties, or the election is for a single vacancy like a Mayor or President, no system where every member represents a single-member constituency can produce a result which comes anywhere close to voters’ wishes. In other words, only a version of proportional top-up or of STV is worth a candle.
Chris,
Re DPR Voting: I am interested in your comment that MPs do more in Parliament than vote.
Once you get rid of the need to vote for the party regardless of the quality of the candidates, some much better MPs would be elected.
A Governing Party needs ministers but surely you are not suggesting that a Governing party would not get enough MPs elected to cause a problem? Certainly not more than the problem we have at present.
When independently minded MPs vote against their own party they use their vote accordingly. Its value doesn’t change, except when the vote is a Free vote (agreed by all parties) in which case all MPs vote value is one.
There may be no perfect voting system but the benefits of DPR Voting address all the major criticisms of all the other electoral systems and the disadvantages are almost insignificant in terms of democracy. I would value your views on what you see are the disadvantages compared with any other electoral system.
stephen J,
I don’t see how DPR would get rid of the need to vote for a party regardless of the quality of the candidate.
Under DPR a grossly under-represented party such as the Lib Dems would still be under-represented on Committees – where much of the real, serious, work is done.
The fact that ministers have to be members of the Commons or Lords is a limiting factor for all Prime Minsters in our Parliamentary system. DPR would do nothing to improve this since a single party government or coalition partner reliant on weighted votes – rather than number of seats – would have a relatively small pool of talent suitable for ministerial posts. Having chosen his ministers, the Prime Minister would find his party short of back-benchers, which might please him but wouldn’t do much for democracy.
If, under DPR, MPs voting against their party would each count for less – or more – than one vote, this would artificially inflate or defeat a rebellion.