The campaigns for Yes & No on AV have been absolutely abominable. The No to AV campaign, while slickly run, has focussed on total lies & distortions of the truth.
For example, have a look at this video by No to AV:
Amusing, yes. But all the facts suggest that AV will lead to less coalitions, not more. The No campaign, from this video to the "CUTE BABIES AND RUGGED SOLDIERS WILL DIE UNDER AV" has been lurching from one random scaremonger after another. It wouldn't last real, sustained intellectual challenge (but more on why that hasn't happened later).
In my opinion, there's plenty to not like about AV, without resorting to this sort of thing. I am voting yes (mostly because I want a real proportional system, not this half-arsed fudge) - but I am only voting yes because I don't want electoral reform to be buried for a generation.
AV is a shit system.
1.) It's not proportional. You can look at Australian outcomes to see that. Indeed, it's often more outrageous than FPTP (see analysis of Blair's 1997 election).
In about 1/3rd of seats, the safe Labour/Tory strongholds, you get a 50% majority without any 2nd prefs even being counted, as more than half the turnout will be for the sitting MP. Probably a real mandate, but a pisser for everyone in the other 49%.
So...it doesn't get rid of safe seats at all, one of the main reasons to supposedly support it.
2.) The system is far from transparent, and leads to enormous resentment as people can't understand why "their" candidate lost to someone less popular - see entire Labour party baffled by election of Ed Milliband, and in theory most of them understand the system.
The no campaign could literally run pictures of Ed Miliband marked "RESULT OF AV" and win on that alone.
3.) It also makes it harder for excellent but divisive people like Caroline Lucas or Douglas Carswell to get elected, as the "anyone but them" vote is bolstered tremendously by the stacking effect AV gives. For the record, Lucas was elected on 30% of the vote in Brighton; "Greens unlikely to win again" is hardly an advert for "AV helps small parties".
It also makes it all but impossible to elect the occasional oddball single issue MP like Martin Bell.
4.) The "50% mandate" is entirely illusory.I question whether the combo of say, liberal votes going to Labour represents a pro-labour mandate or an anti-tory mandate - and in my mind, there is a big difference, but not one reflected in policy.
5.) The most electorally representative seats - the third of seats that are three way marginals we'd all like to see more of - basically get abolished, and probably turn into Liberal/Labour swing seats, disenfranchising loads of people. And yes, if you want a Tory, could reasonably expect a Tory and are forced to have a liberal you are being disenfranchised by the new system.
Of course, with the ramping up of anti-libdem "traitor" rhetoric from Labour (my personal favourite of which was Mark Thomas saying this week that he "finds it astounding that Nick Clegg can wake up every morning, look in the mirror, and not put a gun in his mouth" - harsh), that may change, disadvantaging Labour.
6.) It effectively reintroduces plural voting - with some voters influencing the democratic process 4, 5, or 6 times, and others doing so only once. If you don't believe me, then wait until you see canvassers giving out australian style "preference cards" at the polling booth, telling you how best to vote to aid your chosen party. So, the claim that AV "eliminates tactical voting" is nonsense - it just means people will vote tactically in a different way.
The people who vote for small parties *are* influencing the democratic process more than once, because they are contributing to the elimination of a party during one round, and then having their vote reallocated the next.
So you can vote Green to try to make sure the BNP come last and are thus eliminated. You have then knocked out the BNP and prevented them gaining any more reallocated votes. Your vote can then be transfered to - say - Labour, and you then get to help them win the seat.
Another voter - who just plumps for Labour - does not get that ability to influence the democratic process more than once. You've thus had more voting power than someone else
I'm uncomfortable with the fact that the truly decisive votes - especially in seats where one candidate currently gets between 40 and 50 % - are the second/third/fourth/fifth preference votes of the most unpopular parties. We hand the casting votes in our system to the BNP voter - or alternatively to the ultimate tactical voters, gaming the system. Either is bad.
7.) BABIES WILL DIE, but I'd also like to point out that rugged soldiers will not get body armour or guns, as all the money will be poured into biro ink caused by the endless, endless, box checking.
Despite all of the "Kittens will die" rhetoric, the yes campaign has been even worse.
From it's total failure to connect with the public, squabbles over Nick Clegg "sharing platforms", airbrushing Benjamin Zephaniah out of its inner city leaflets , to failing to garner official spokespeople to do debates it has been probably the most shambolic political campaign in the last twenty years. As a media professional, it's actually embarrassing to watch.
On the other hand, as a Tory, watching a campaign mishandled so badly by Labour & the Libdems, is reassuring to watch. Letting enfeebled remanant of the Labour election team in the Millibunker dictate the campaign is akin raising Barbara Cartland from the grave and then putting her in charge of government make-up policy.
So, after that screed of "No to AV", why do I think we should vote yes?
1.)It's an incremental step to a better, fairer voting system - it will allow the democratic process to more accurately reflect the will of the people, to a greater degree than now at least.
2.) I think one or two elections under AV will produce a non-proportional result which will make the case for moving on to a better system stronger. I think AV moves toward entrenching the idea that proportionality is good, and it (a poor system) won't last that meme becoming established.
3.) I think a "no" vote will make the real opponents of proportionality (the rotten borough Labour MPs, especially in Scotland & the hunter-shooter racist homophobic shires Tories) dig in and say "the people voted no". It'll be 20 years before we even get something as half-arsed as AV on the table again.
4.) It will abolish *some* safe seats, which I see as a good thing. Safe seats often entrench the most awful people in political parties (Hazel Blears is a good example), and in many seats, the momentum of revulsion will carry off these loathsome toads. The best current example of this is that under AV, Ed Balls would almost certainly lose his ultra-marginal seat. Which leads me to...
5.) An important one for me - Labour will lose the most from the introduction of AV. I think the poll I linked to even understates the consequences - especially in Wales & Scotland, the "anyone but Labour" vote is very strong. If you're a Tory like me, and think a return to a Labour government would be a catastrophe, then hey, this isn't a bad thing. AV lead to almost 20 years of tories in Australia...
That said,
6.) Whatever the impact on the main parties in the short run, it will be dwarfed by changes in how we *do* politics over the next 50 years, and that is genuinely exciting. The real effect of these changes won't appear until 2020 at the earliest - and a radical overhaul of politics sounds like a good thing, even if it takes a while.
7.) The first-past-the-post system may work under a two-party system, but we no longer have one. In 1951, 97% of voters voted for Labour or the Conservatives, but this figure was reduced to 66% in 2010.
We should have a voting system that takes account of the new political pluralism. The days of red or blue are dead. Accordingly, politicians should need to cultivate support from outside their traditional bases if they are to have a mandate to represent them. While this will not happen that much under AV – one-third of seats in 2010 were won with over 50% of the vote in any case – it will happen more, and it will reflect that large amounts of people hate both Labour AND the Tories.
Hardly a ringing endorsement, I realise, but the truth is no-one really wants AV for itself (including all six members of the Yes to AV steering committee). I dislike AV, but I think I dislike the status quo more.
This referendum is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for us to have our say on the current system. We should probably take it.
One of very few decent analyses of both sides of the argument. This campaign has been probably the most ridiculous I've seen. Neither side has had anything approaching a coherent argument. I'm voting yes for purely self-interested reasons. AV offers the closest I'm likely to get to being able to vote for "The Coalition", and also will probably make it less likely that the Lib Dems are wiped out. A yes vote is also going to go a long way to protect Nick Clegg from disgruntled party members.
ReplyDeleteSome great points. I think you'll be cruelly disappointed if you see this as a stepping stone. 1. Low turnout will be taken to mean 'nobody cares about electoral reform'. 2. 'The system needs time to bed down' or 'we've just had a referendum' will sound fair. 3. People who don't like AV will 'remember' how great they always thought FPTP was.
ReplyDeleteAlso, whilst those of us that avidly read the opinion pages find this all fascinating most people unfortunately, don't care, don't understand and don't care that they don't understand. I've had to explain to several otherwise quite well informed people what's happening, because "apparently there's some kind of referendum thing going on".
ReplyDeleteI've also had to explain to several people what we are actually voting for, as many people seem to think we are voting for proportional representation. Mind you, the majority of those people are students so they are far more concerned with the increase to tuition fees/cuts to funding for universities than any changes to our voting system.
ReplyDeleteJohn
I haven't had time to read this in full, so will probably send a later reply when I get the opportunity. But to the claim that 'people don't really care', I think this should be qualified. People DO care about political reform, DO broadly think the electoral system needs reform and, at the start of the campaign, favoured the Yes to AV campaign by around 10 points. But it is going to be difficult for that to be translated to a significant supporting turnout at the referendum, for the principle reason that so many major political interests are against it, as are the vast majority of the press - who have enormous power to, in many ways, either get people to vote against it or create an environment of assumptions and lack of information in which they simply don't vote. But none of this should, I think, be taken to indicate satisfaction with or approval of FPTP, nor undermine observations of a genuine (if hardly novel) mood of disatisfaction with politics and sentiments generally in favour of reform.
ReplyDeleteAssuming the two anonymous commentators are different people - a safe bet.
ReplyDeleteOn your points Willard (because I could find the time to read it in my busy schedule!):
ReplyDelete1) Anyone who claims for the Yes side that safe seats will die is an idiot.
2) We find it easy to understand AV when it is placed out of context. London won the Olympics through AV and even if you hate that fact, everyone understood that once the Russians, Yanks and Spaniards got knocked out, their voters wanted us not Paris. Explain the new system as a series of FPTP two-horse races and experience it and people will understand.
3) Caroline was a freak accident in FPTP and largely due to her own person, not the party. I would suggest that Brighton votes would have 2nd preferenced her to high heaven rather than transfer elsewhere. Just look at who comes third and think where the preferences go.
4) Anti-preferences are important and I believe are valid. I can understand that those messages are not clear but I think they're far clearer if you see what the full preference list of your constituents are as opposed to now. Isn't more information about what the demos thinks preferable in a democracy?
5) If 60-70% of your neighbours don't want you as their representative, why is it your right to represent them because our current system doesn't allow you to coordinate to ensure that doesn't happen? Why are positive preferences more important than negative ones? This is a really important question Willard - I'm truly philosophically interested in the answer.
6) Individuals attempting to vote tactically in their own seats is not that bad. We should all try to be tactical, right? Why are tactics so bad? At least this way, individuals have a little amount of say over their own tactical choices. Last election, yellow became blue became red became brown became meaningless.
Now to the remainder of what you wrote. I agree with most of the ancillary benefits. AV is shit but it is better than FPTP. I also agree that the parties that benefit are never clear until the context settles. Nonetheless, FPTP has delivered this nation some truly, catastrophically undemocratic results. The 1980s were a farce.
As Will says, anything that gets us closer to a system where individuals can attempt to have a voice (even if only once every five years and in a very crude manner) is probably not insensible.
personally i don't like PR, i have no desire for a LIST system.
ReplyDeletebut then i don't like this form of AV either
A much simpler system of AV is the count up system: If say there are 5 candidates A to E then you you put 1 by the person you want to win and they get 5 points/votes, if you put 2 by the second person they get 4 points/votes down to the person you give a 5 to and they get 1 point/votes. Obviously you can just vote for one person if you want which makes it just like first past the post. The teller counts up the votes/points and whoever gets the most wins
the whole lowest person drops out and redistribute their votes thing seems like a huge fudge
PS could you delete whoever posted the anonymous comment with racist remark please
Ah, sorry, thought I had clicked "delete", but apparently I hadn't:)
ReplyDeleteRacists now seem to be destroyed!
Willard,
ReplyDeleteWith respect, I think that most of your concerns about AV are wrong. I do understand that you are not advocating this as part of an overall 'No to AV' case.
1) It is still much better in this regard than FPTP. The argument that 'occasionally the results are even more outrageous' assumes that anything which is disproportionate to 1st preferences is outrageous, which of course is precisely the falsehood AV addresses. If Labour would have done better in 1997, that reflects the fact that Labour was even more palatable to those that didn't vote for them first time than any other option. I see nothing particularly problematic about that (bearing in mind that given that we have constituency MPs, having one who is palatable to the majority of the constituents is still an important objective).
This doesn't mean AV doesn’t get rid of safe seats (Can concedes this too easily). Sure, all safe seats won't just change hands instantly (why on earth would that be the relevant criterion?) but because far fewer votes need to be changed to call seats into question (and because MPs will now lose tactical votes) safe seats will become far less safe, and therefore more accountable.
2) As I have mentioned elsewhere, it is just perverse to believe that this is a bigger problem for the democratic credentials of a system than the massive irrelevancy of many votes which FPTP creates, the necessity for tactical voting, the disregard of anything but preferences on who you most like etc. Also, a slight transparency loss is the price you pay for power sharing, but given that I think there are lots of reasons why power sharing is generally good, I don't see any evaluation which could reasonably conclude that it is a price not worth paying.
3) I strongly believe this claim is false. Excellent figures are usually not that divisive - Lucas and Bell both seem archetypes of the sorts of people who do (or could) appeal to a very large number of second preferences. And if figures really are so divisive that the majority of a constituency hates them, I think that is a pretty good reason why they shouldn't be the MP elected to represent them. See here for a factual refutation: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/04/is-fptp-or-av-better-for-minor-parties-and-independents.html#more.