We haven't had a nationwide referendum in this country since 1975, now we face one on our voting system and it's a pretty low-key, perhaps to some invisible, affair. A few days ago a leaflet plopped through the letter box from a quango called The Electoral Commission explaining what the referendum is about and, I thought very fairly, defining the differences between the current voting system and the alternative on offer. My first thought about the whole affair is that it is worryingly low-key, probably because it concerns a subject that stirs interest in very few people.
The previous referendum, on whether the UK should continue to be a member of the European Economic Community, was a very high-profile affair. It was a topic that split both our major political parties down the middle (as it does today) and was headline news ever since the UK joined the EEC in 1973. With the dishonest and bullying approach that has marked every step of the project to create a United States of Europe, the UK was signed-up to the EEC without asking the people whether they wanted it and a referendum was allowed only once membership became the status quo. Even if the matter had been approached honestly by holding the referendum before we were committed to the disaster that has become the EU, the importance of the issue would not have changed. It was a major constituional shift for this country. Switching from the established form of voting for MPs (first past the post) to anything else is also a major constitutional shift.
That other systems are used in various parts of the UK and in various other types of election is neither here nor there. The established position is that the person who gains most votes in each constituency wins a seat in Parliament and introducing any other method of voting goes to the heart of our flawed but well-established system. My natural conservatism says that, for all its faults, the established method should not be changed unless there is very good reason to do so. Not only should it be arguable that an alternative would be better, it should be clear that that is so.
This makes me ask what is wrong with the current system. Various faults have been suggested. I don't pretend that what I am about to say is exhaustive but there are two arguments which seem to be most commonly promulgated and to be more substantive than any others.
First, it is said to be wrong that some constituencies are so dominated by one established political party that they can never change hands under "first past the post" and that this deprives voters who do not support that party from having an effective vote. In a way the objection is fair. Some constituencies have a long history of returning an MP of one party with 50% or more of the votes cast so no other candidate can get close to winning. Being in such a constituency myself I am well aware of the "wasted vote" argument. This problem also arises where one party regularly receives less than 50% of the votes cast. At 49% there only need be 2% cast for third party candidates for 49% to be victorious and at 43% of the vote a further 8% going to assorted small candidates means 43% wins.
Secondly, it is said that in more marginal seats people do not always vote for the candidate they want to win but in order to prevent another candidate being successful. A Conservative-Labour marginal seat puts pressure on those who might wish to vote for a third candidate to vote Conservative if they want to keep Labour out or vice versa. Again, it is a fair objection in that people can feel the need to vote against their conscience in order to achieve a result which is not what they really want but is better in their eyes than the other possible outcome. They know their chosen candidate has no real chance, so they engage in a damage limitation exercise.
Both of these objections are, in my view, consequences of the constituency system and, to a lesser extent, of the dominance of the main political parties rather than consequences of the voting system.
For so long as we elect MPs for individual constituencies there will be instances of "safe" seats. Some places contain so many people of like mind that a socialist or a conservative will always triumph even if party labels change. AV seems unlikely to make an difference in such constituencies. Similarly, some seats will always be likely to return an MP of one party or another party, third party supporters know their chosen candidate will not win. AV might lead to more people putting their first choice first but it seems inevitable that they will use their second vote for tactical purposes. Typically under the present system a LibDem supporter who wants to keep Labour out will vote Conservative where the LibDem candidate cannot expect enough first choice votes to win and under AV he will either vote Conservative with LibDem as his second choice or LibDem with Conservative as his second choice. Either way, once all but the top two candidates have been eliminated (which will result in Labour and Conservative remaining in the race in almost all Con-Lab marginal seats) his current tactical voting seems likely to be replicated whether he put Con first and LibDem second or vice versa.
It is only when we look at seats that are genuine races between three or more candidates that AV might make a difference to the outcome. There is certainly an argument for such seats to go to the candidate who receives the least disapproval, although that rather goes against the grain in an age of pasty-faced political leaders who go out of their way to avoid giving offence and thereby avoid advocating any sort or position of principle. Charming personality politics gives us Blair and Cameron as Prime Minister, two men without a coherent political principle between them. AV seems designed to ensure that beige is the secret to success. I don't find that particularly attractive.
Even less attractive is a system that results in those who are polictically savvy having more of a say than those who are not. For those of us who enjoy politics and take more than a passing interest in it, the opportunity to place multiple choices would be a delight - not least because we can don an anorak, try to second-guess the likely result and use our choices to eliminate someone we don't want to succeed. Those with little interest in politics but a desire to be part of the democratic process will have no incentive to approach the subject in the same way. They might not think it necessary or appropriate to place a second, third or other choice. Under the present system all who bother to vote are in exactly the same position, they have one cross to place on a piece of paper and their cross will either be against the name of the winner or against the name of a loser. Under AV everyone has the option to place as many preferences as there are candidates but no one is compelled to use all those choices.
One thing I find genuinely exciting about a general election is that I am in exactly the same position as a multi-millionnaire and tramp. We each have one vote. I am in the same position as the most intellectually brilliant and the window-licker. We each have one vote. I am in the same position as the most knowledgable political analyst and the person who has no interest in politics at all. We each have one vote. I am in the same position as a person of noble breeding and the latest in a line of illiterate potato pickers. We each have one vote. I am on a par with the Prime Minister. We each have one vote. Talking of illiterate multi-millionnaire window-lickers with no interest in politics, I am in the same position as Premier League footballers. We each have one vote. I find it unpalatable that we might adopt a voting system that allows those who take an interest to have a more effective say than Mrs Muggins who gets on with her life but votes every time because she is proud to have the right to do so. If I could see an advantage to AV that outweighs this disadvantage I might be persuaded to vote for the change. All I have heard so far is that it might allow a more concilliatory result in some marginal seats. To my mind that is an irrelevance compared to the levelling benefit of every voter being in the position of having one vote.
Addendum
In the comments (here) the good Mr Wadsworth disputes my assertion that AV leads to some having more than one vote. The case he puts is as follows: "Under AV everyone has one vote in each round of voting. Although your ballot paper might be shuffled from your first choice candidate's pile to your second choice etc, that is your one vote being shuffled around and in the final round it will be counted once." That is patent nonsense and the reason why it is nonsense illustrates the objection I raised above. A simple example shows why he is wrong.
Let's say we have a four-way marginal, Lab, Con, LibDem and UKIP. Mr A votes only for the UKIP candidate, who is eliminated in the first round. When the second round votes are cast Mr A is not involved in the process because he has not made a second choice. Mr A placed one vote and it was counted only once. Mr B also chose UKIP but he put LibDem second. In the second round his vote remains in play because he made a second choice. One could say he has had two votes, but let's not quibble about that just yet, at each of the first two stages of voting he has had one vote. On elimination of the LibDem chap in the second round, he plays no part in the third round. Mr A is involved in one round only, Mr B is involved in two rounds but neither plays any part in the final round. It is, therefore, quite obviously the case that not every vote is carried forward, only those who have voted for one of the final two candidates (or more if one reaches 50% while there are still three or more people in the game) have their vote carried forward to the final round.
I do not consider it a matter of semantics to say that Mr A has had one vote, Mr B has had two votes and those who places the Lab or Con candidates somewhere in their list have had three votes. Of course it is true that at each stage any one constituent has only one vote but that does not change the fact that some continue to have a say while others have their votes discarded because they did not make a sufficient number of choices to remain in play.
It is interesting to note that no commenter has yet suggested what benefits AV is meant to bring.
The previous referendum, on whether the UK should continue to be a member of the European Economic Community, was a very high-profile affair. It was a topic that split both our major political parties down the middle (as it does today) and was headline news ever since the UK joined the EEC in 1973. With the dishonest and bullying approach that has marked every step of the project to create a United States of Europe, the UK was signed-up to the EEC without asking the people whether they wanted it and a referendum was allowed only once membership became the status quo. Even if the matter had been approached honestly by holding the referendum before we were committed to the disaster that has become the EU, the importance of the issue would not have changed. It was a major constituional shift for this country. Switching from the established form of voting for MPs (first past the post) to anything else is also a major constitutional shift.
That other systems are used in various parts of the UK and in various other types of election is neither here nor there. The established position is that the person who gains most votes in each constituency wins a seat in Parliament and introducing any other method of voting goes to the heart of our flawed but well-established system. My natural conservatism says that, for all its faults, the established method should not be changed unless there is very good reason to do so. Not only should it be arguable that an alternative would be better, it should be clear that that is so.
This makes me ask what is wrong with the current system. Various faults have been suggested. I don't pretend that what I am about to say is exhaustive but there are two arguments which seem to be most commonly promulgated and to be more substantive than any others.
First, it is said to be wrong that some constituencies are so dominated by one established political party that they can never change hands under "first past the post" and that this deprives voters who do not support that party from having an effective vote. In a way the objection is fair. Some constituencies have a long history of returning an MP of one party with 50% or more of the votes cast so no other candidate can get close to winning. Being in such a constituency myself I am well aware of the "wasted vote" argument. This problem also arises where one party regularly receives less than 50% of the votes cast. At 49% there only need be 2% cast for third party candidates for 49% to be victorious and at 43% of the vote a further 8% going to assorted small candidates means 43% wins.
Secondly, it is said that in more marginal seats people do not always vote for the candidate they want to win but in order to prevent another candidate being successful. A Conservative-Labour marginal seat puts pressure on those who might wish to vote for a third candidate to vote Conservative if they want to keep Labour out or vice versa. Again, it is a fair objection in that people can feel the need to vote against their conscience in order to achieve a result which is not what they really want but is better in their eyes than the other possible outcome. They know their chosen candidate has no real chance, so they engage in a damage limitation exercise.
Both of these objections are, in my view, consequences of the constituency system and, to a lesser extent, of the dominance of the main political parties rather than consequences of the voting system.
For so long as we elect MPs for individual constituencies there will be instances of "safe" seats. Some places contain so many people of like mind that a socialist or a conservative will always triumph even if party labels change. AV seems unlikely to make an difference in such constituencies. Similarly, some seats will always be likely to return an MP of one party or another party, third party supporters know their chosen candidate will not win. AV might lead to more people putting their first choice first but it seems inevitable that they will use their second vote for tactical purposes. Typically under the present system a LibDem supporter who wants to keep Labour out will vote Conservative where the LibDem candidate cannot expect enough first choice votes to win and under AV he will either vote Conservative with LibDem as his second choice or LibDem with Conservative as his second choice. Either way, once all but the top two candidates have been eliminated (which will result in Labour and Conservative remaining in the race in almost all Con-Lab marginal seats) his current tactical voting seems likely to be replicated whether he put Con first and LibDem second or vice versa.
It is only when we look at seats that are genuine races between three or more candidates that AV might make a difference to the outcome. There is certainly an argument for such seats to go to the candidate who receives the least disapproval, although that rather goes against the grain in an age of pasty-faced political leaders who go out of their way to avoid giving offence and thereby avoid advocating any sort or position of principle. Charming personality politics gives us Blair and Cameron as Prime Minister, two men without a coherent political principle between them. AV seems designed to ensure that beige is the secret to success. I don't find that particularly attractive.
Even less attractive is a system that results in those who are polictically savvy having more of a say than those who are not. For those of us who enjoy politics and take more than a passing interest in it, the opportunity to place multiple choices would be a delight - not least because we can don an anorak, try to second-guess the likely result and use our choices to eliminate someone we don't want to succeed. Those with little interest in politics but a desire to be part of the democratic process will have no incentive to approach the subject in the same way. They might not think it necessary or appropriate to place a second, third or other choice. Under the present system all who bother to vote are in exactly the same position, they have one cross to place on a piece of paper and their cross will either be against the name of the winner or against the name of a loser. Under AV everyone has the option to place as many preferences as there are candidates but no one is compelled to use all those choices.
One thing I find genuinely exciting about a general election is that I am in exactly the same position as a multi-millionnaire and tramp. We each have one vote. I am in the same position as the most intellectually brilliant and the window-licker. We each have one vote. I am in the same position as the most knowledgable political analyst and the person who has no interest in politics at all. We each have one vote. I am in the same position as a person of noble breeding and the latest in a line of illiterate potato pickers. We each have one vote. I am on a par with the Prime Minister. We each have one vote. Talking of illiterate multi-millionnaire window-lickers with no interest in politics, I am in the same position as Premier League footballers. We each have one vote. I find it unpalatable that we might adopt a voting system that allows those who take an interest to have a more effective say than Mrs Muggins who gets on with her life but votes every time because she is proud to have the right to do so. If I could see an advantage to AV that outweighs this disadvantage I might be persuaded to vote for the change. All I have heard so far is that it might allow a more concilliatory result in some marginal seats. To my mind that is an irrelevance compared to the levelling benefit of every voter being in the position of having one vote.
Addendum
In the comments (here) the good Mr Wadsworth disputes my assertion that AV leads to some having more than one vote. The case he puts is as follows: "Under AV everyone has one vote in each round of voting. Although your ballot paper might be shuffled from your first choice candidate's pile to your second choice etc, that is your one vote being shuffled around and in the final round it will be counted once." That is patent nonsense and the reason why it is nonsense illustrates the objection I raised above. A simple example shows why he is wrong.
Let's say we have a four-way marginal, Lab, Con, LibDem and UKIP. Mr A votes only for the UKIP candidate, who is eliminated in the first round. When the second round votes are cast Mr A is not involved in the process because he has not made a second choice. Mr A placed one vote and it was counted only once. Mr B also chose UKIP but he put LibDem second. In the second round his vote remains in play because he made a second choice. One could say he has had two votes, but let's not quibble about that just yet, at each of the first two stages of voting he has had one vote. On elimination of the LibDem chap in the second round, he plays no part in the third round. Mr A is involved in one round only, Mr B is involved in two rounds but neither plays any part in the final round. It is, therefore, quite obviously the case that not every vote is carried forward, only those who have voted for one of the final two candidates (or more if one reaches 50% while there are still three or more people in the game) have their vote carried forward to the final round.
I do not consider it a matter of semantics to say that Mr A has had one vote, Mr B has had two votes and those who places the Lab or Con candidates somewhere in their list have had three votes. Of course it is true that at each stage any one constituent has only one vote but that does not change the fact that some continue to have a say while others have their votes discarded because they did not make a sufficient number of choices to remain in play.
It is interesting to note that no commenter has yet suggested what benefits AV is meant to bring.
Posts
14 comments:
A well argued piece Mr. FB, your time au jardin has been well spent.
For myself, I feel this referendum on AV is too much like NuLabor's "Middle Way" which resulted in policies that tried to appeal to many with out really fixing the problem.
If it was about a significant change to our voting system I think we would have seen a blood bath on the Tory side by now.
In reality all the political parties know deep down it's a sop thrown out to appease us peasants.
"One thing I find genuinely exciting about a general election is that I am in exactly the same position as a multi-millionnaire and tramp. We each have one vote."
If that's your killer argument in favour of FPTP it is pretty weak, as exactly the same applies to AV. Under AV everybody has one vote... in each round of voting.
Although your ballot paper might be shuffled from your first choice candidate's pile to your second choice etc, that is your one vote being shuffled around and in the final round it will be counted once.
Your post is just rationalising in the defense of a voting system that benefits your politics, ie. not centrist.
Regards,
Andrew W.
Can I add that I think the AV system is not a good choice for a sort of more proportional voting system for Britain and if, as I suspect, it gets thoroughly trashed in the vote on the 5th May, it'll serve the Lib Dems right for choosing such a poor option as an alternative to FPP.
Andrew W
Totally agreed. Personally I would support a move to the Irish system of STV in multi-member constituencies, but AV arguably delivers even less proportionality than FPTP and is likely to encourage mushy consensus politics. I'm no fan of the Greens or Caroline Lucas, but there's no doubt that she does represent a substantial strand of opinion in the country and she would not have won a Westminster seat under AV.
In New Zealand we changed from the Westminster system to Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) a few years ago, it's not too bad a system, we did have a prick in a centrist party causing problems initially in auctioning off his parliamentary votes to the two main parties, but after a couple of elections doing that he destroyed his credibility with voters and can now only dream about having those power trips.
I think the biggest problem we now have with MMP is that, as a disaffected Labour MP recently described it, the top of the Labour Party list has turned into "a gaggle of gays and unionists".
That is, people who might not have a lot of appeal to the man in the street get into Parliament without having to win voter approval because the list candidates and ranking are decided by the party hierarchy.
It occurred to me a little while ago that this problem could be gotten around by giving "list" seats to the highest polling unsuccessful electorate candidates from each party, rather than having separate party lists.
Andrew W
That is why the Irish system works so well, that you have to give votes to individuals, not to party lists.
"Although your ballot paper might be shuffled from your first choice candidate's pile to your second choice etc, that is your one vote being shuffled around and in the final round it will be counted once."
Nonsense.
I've added an addendum to explain why.
I agree with Mr. Wadsworth's way of looking at it.
Unless I've sadly misunderstood the proposed system Mr. A and Mr. B both had the option of filling in further preferences on their voting papers, the fact that they elected not to do so is hardly the fault of the system, anymore than it would be unfair of the system to not have registered a vote for people who didn't ... vote, if people elect to have a vote in each and every round they can, all of them.
"It is interesting to note that no commenter has yet suggested what benefits AV is meant to bring."
Less dramatic Left-Right (or Right-Left) swings at each change of government.
People and businesses find dramatic swings in policy destructive, in the modern world stability is an economic attribute.
Andrew W
@ Andrew W
I think it might be better for all concerned if we could just take the "party" out of politics, governing instead for the good of the country.
Barnacle Bill,
yeah, and there are plenty of democratic systems that would encourage government through individuals rather than parties, but to get to such a system would be a revolutionary change because parties would work against such a change.
Andrew W
Andrew W - I'm only day dreaming on that one, I'm now sadly of the opinion there isn't an "honourable member" left anywhere in this blighted land.
Mr Andrew, it is of course true that everyone has the option of using all their possible choices but those most likely to do so are, I suspect, those who are most politically savvy. As I said in the article, that is not something I find enticing.
Mr A might well have chosen to make one choice only because he genuinely was not prepared to give any support to the other candidates. To him it would be cynical manipulation to vote for others when there was only one person he felt was appropriate to represent his constituency. Others might be generally of the same mind but choose to engage in cynical manipulation. Why should Mr A be excluded from the final result when he has acted according to his conscience?
You might well be correct in saying that AV would produce less dramatic left-right or right-left swings on a change of government, to my mind that is a powerful argument against AV. A constant middling mash of compromise does not allow differing views to be put into practice and then judged.
"To him it would be cynical manipulation to vote for others when there was only one person he felt was appropriate to represent his constituency."
Mr. FatBigot, there are plenty of people around who choose not to vote under the present system because they feel none of the candidates are adequate, Perhaps their frustration and disappointment is best evidenced by this graph:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
"A constant middling mash of compromise does not allow differing views to be put into practice and then judged."
To some extent I agree, but I rate dramatic swings as more destructive.
The graph in the above link does provide another reason why FPP (or FPTP) is a dog of a system though, why vote if you're in a constituency in which you know your vote won't make a difference? Under AV, or other more proportional voting systems, far fewer electors will feel their voting is a pointless waste of time.
Andrew W
Post a Comment