Reasonable people may wonder who chose the week following that of the royal wedding for a referendum the outcome of which could have the most significant effect on the British electoral system since the Great Reform Act of 1832. It was no great surprise that in recent days the subject of the referendum - a proposal to replace the so-called "first-past-the-post" system with the "alternative vote" or "AV" process - has played second fiddle to speculation over such pressing issues as what Kate's dress would look like. But at least discussion over the dress was civilized. Much of what little discussion there has been over AV has seemingly been intended to scare, rather than educate, the electorate. Politicians of all stripe, but especially those on the right, have done a real disservice to the voters.
The referendum is the major (and some may say the only) significant concession the Liberal Democrats were able to extract from David Cameron in return for joining in a coalition government with the Conservatives. LibDems have long criticized the current system of single round voting under which a candidate can be elected to Parliament with less than 50% of the vote cast in his or her constituencty. Under AV, voters would rank candidates in order of preference, and a majority - not a plurality – of votes would be required to secure election. If the leading candidate failed to garner sufficient votes on the initial round, the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated and his or her votes redistributed based on their voters' preferences, and so on until one candidate passed the 50% mark.
Both systems have merits and drawbacks, but the position of the major political parties appears to be based largely on self interest.
The LibDems strongly back AV, because it would result in their gaining a greater representation in Parliament. The non-partisan British Election Study estimates that had the last election been fought under AV rules, the LibDems would have gained a net 32 seats, taking their total from 57 to 89. The two major parties would both have lost seats - the Conservatives a net loss of 22 and Labour a net loss of 10. The Tories oppose AV for precisely the reason the LibDems support it. The Labour Party is split between those who take a long-term view and support the existing system simply because, like the Conservatives, they benefit from it, and those who look to derive short-term strategic advantage from the outcome of the referendum. The short-term thinkers are, in turn, divided on how to vote. Success for "no" would deal a body blow to Nick Clegg, who badly needs to deliver victory on AV to justify to disgruntled LibDem members his decision to enter into a coalition with the Tories. On the other hand, success for "yes" would embarrass David Cameron among the Tory rank and file, who never wanted a referendum in the first place. One Labour politician summarized the strategic quandry facing his colleagues by reciting a joke doing the rounds in Labour circles: if you come upon a Tory and a LibDem standing side by side on the edge of a cliff, whom do you push over first? The answer: the Tory, of course, because business should always come before pleasure!
The arguments have shaped up along the following lines. Supporters of AV claim that the existing system results in unrepresentative government. The facts support their case. in the last election the LibDems' tally of 23% of the popular vote translated into less than 10% of the seats at Westminster. True, their 57 seats were sufficient to gain them a place in the coalition, but had the election been fought under AV, the LibDems could have entered into a coalition with Labour, the party with which they are philosophically more closely aligned. Proponents of first-past-the-post say it is simple and fair; AV, they claim, is more complicated and is unfair because (i) it would permit the election of MPs who gained fewer first choice votes than other candidates, and (ii) would allow some voters to vote more than once (i.e., as their votes are redistributed to other candidates on a second or subsequent round of counting). AV also, or so they argue, favors "extremist" parties.
The facts clearly favor AV. However, debates are shaped by the terminology used to define the issues, and “first-past-the-post” sounds like an inherently fair and reasonable system. It evokes images of a horserace (that most British of sporting pasttimes), and who would deny that the first horse to cross the line deserves the winner’s purse? The problem is that in a parliamentary election, unlike the racetrack, there is no “post” to be first past, at least not a fixed post. Under the current system, the “post” is whatever number of votes the highest polling candidate happens to get. If he or she achieves a majority, the post is 50% plus one. But if the winner is elected simply with a plurality, the post could be 45%, 40% or even lower. By contrast, AV really is a first-past-the-post contest, with the post fixed at 50% plus one. As it should be.
At the heart of the debate, though I haven’t seen it expressed in these terms, lies a fundamental conundrum about the role of a Member of Parliament in Britain’s constitutional system. Under the constituency model, the MP is charged with representing the views of his or her specific constituents in Parliament. The local MP is the person can people turn to if they are having a problem dealing with their local authorities. A question asked in the Commons, or an MP's letter to a Minister, may influence a local planning decision. Viewed simply at the constituency level, the existing system probably does make sense - or at least the argument for change is not so compelling as to offset its undoubted simplicity. But when voters cast their vote for a parliamentary candidate they are also indirectly voting for a Prime Minister, a Cabinet, and the policies they bring with them. And therein lies the problem with first-past-the-post. On a national, as opposed to constituency, level, the fact that MPs can be elected merely with a plurality of the vote results in the effective disenfranchisement of a large section of the populace who do not vote for either of the two major parties. The situation is actually even worse than the raw figures indicate, because many people end up voting for the Labour or Conservative candidate simply because they believe a vote for the LibDems or some other party would be "wasted". Adoption of AV wouldn't solve this problem, but it would help, and it would better balance the merits of true proportional representation against the benefits of Britain's traditional constituency system. (A further step forward would be to replace the existing House of Lords, currently crammed - literally -to overflowing with aging party grandees and political cronies, with an elected chamber utilizing larger multi-member constituencies and a system of proportional representation.)
I believe AV would have some ancillary benefits too. Asking voters to rank candidates rather than pick out a single name could encourage voters to examine the policies of all parties more critically and could foster informed debate. Candidates themselves would have a greater incentive to reach out to all voters, not merely the party faithful.
Cameron argues that it would be "unfair" if the first choice candidate isn't elected, but that supposed "unfairness" has to be weighed against the fact that two thirds of sitting MPs were elected with less than 50% of the vote. Is that "fair"? And at a time when public cynicism of politics is the order of the day, voters are increasingly likely to cast votes strategically and vote against the candidate they don't like, rather than in favor of the one they do. In other words, first choice may not really mean first choice. I think AV clearly wins the fairness test. And as a Labour MP pointed out in the Commons last week, if David Cameron believes it is unfair if the candidate with the highest number of first choices isn't elected, he should resign his post in favor of David Davis, who beat him in the first round of balloting for leadership of the Conservative party. It took three rounds of voting for Cameron to "pass the post" and secure a majority of votes. If AV is good enough to elect the Tory leader (and his Labour counterpart), can it really be that "unfair"?
The argument that AV would allow some people to vote more than once is downright silly. Everyone's vote is counted in each round; those who support the first-round front runner still have their votes counted if a second round is required. And the suggestion that AV would favor extremist parties is groundless scare-mongering. In fact the odious British National Party has joined Cameron is opposing a change in the current system. It is telling that when all's said and done the best argument Cameron can muster in favor of first-past-the-post is its "simplicity".
Whatever the outcome, the future of the coalition looks less than rosy. The debate over AV has taken on a decidedly nasty tone and the once cosy relationship between "Dave and Nick" (so cosy, in fact, that their first joint news conferece in the garden of Number 10 was likened to a gay marriage) now looks decidedly frosty. Senior LibDem figures have appealed to Labour supporters to join them in defeating the "forces of reaction" - i.e., the very people with whom they have chosen to join in government. These comments won't quickly be forgotten quickly, whatever the outcome. Let's be clear. I have no sympathy with the current LibDem leadership, who fought the last election with arguably the most progressive agenda of all three parties, yet sacrificed most of it in a second in return for a handful of seats at Cameron's Cabinet table. It's easy to understand why many in the Labour party would like to see Nick Clegg humbled. But the principle is too important to allow the outcome of the vote to turn on short-term political advantage. Let's hope Clegg & Co. win this one.
 |
| Dave and Nick - Is their "Gay Wedding" headed for the Rocks over AV? |
The referendum is the major (and some may say the only) significant concession the Liberal Democrats were able to extract from David Cameron in return for joining in a coalition government with the Conservatives. LibDems have long criticized the current system of single round voting under which a candidate can be elected to Parliament with less than 50% of the vote cast in his or her constituencty. Under AV, voters would rank candidates in order of preference, and a majority - not a plurality – of votes would be required to secure election. If the leading candidate failed to garner sufficient votes on the initial round, the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated and his or her votes redistributed based on their voters' preferences, and so on until one candidate passed the 50% mark.
Both systems have merits and drawbacks, but the position of the major political parties appears to be based largely on self interest.
The LibDems strongly back AV, because it would result in their gaining a greater representation in Parliament. The non-partisan British Election Study estimates that had the last election been fought under AV rules, the LibDems would have gained a net 32 seats, taking their total from 57 to 89. The two major parties would both have lost seats - the Conservatives a net loss of 22 and Labour a net loss of 10. The Tories oppose AV for precisely the reason the LibDems support it. The Labour Party is split between those who take a long-term view and support the existing system simply because, like the Conservatives, they benefit from it, and those who look to derive short-term strategic advantage from the outcome of the referendum. The short-term thinkers are, in turn, divided on how to vote. Success for "no" would deal a body blow to Nick Clegg, who badly needs to deliver victory on AV to justify to disgruntled LibDem members his decision to enter into a coalition with the Tories. On the other hand, success for "yes" would embarrass David Cameron among the Tory rank and file, who never wanted a referendum in the first place. One Labour politician summarized the strategic quandry facing his colleagues by reciting a joke doing the rounds in Labour circles: if you come upon a Tory and a LibDem standing side by side on the edge of a cliff, whom do you push over first? The answer: the Tory, of course, because business should always come before pleasure!
The arguments have shaped up along the following lines. Supporters of AV claim that the existing system results in unrepresentative government. The facts support their case. in the last election the LibDems' tally of 23% of the popular vote translated into less than 10% of the seats at Westminster. True, their 57 seats were sufficient to gain them a place in the coalition, but had the election been fought under AV, the LibDems could have entered into a coalition with Labour, the party with which they are philosophically more closely aligned. Proponents of first-past-the-post say it is simple and fair; AV, they claim, is more complicated and is unfair because (i) it would permit the election of MPs who gained fewer first choice votes than other candidates, and (ii) would allow some voters to vote more than once (i.e., as their votes are redistributed to other candidates on a second or subsequent round of counting). AV also, or so they argue, favors "extremist" parties.
The facts clearly favor AV. However, debates are shaped by the terminology used to define the issues, and “first-past-the-post” sounds like an inherently fair and reasonable system. It evokes images of a horserace (that most British of sporting pasttimes), and who would deny that the first horse to cross the line deserves the winner’s purse? The problem is that in a parliamentary election, unlike the racetrack, there is no “post” to be first past, at least not a fixed post. Under the current system, the “post” is whatever number of votes the highest polling candidate happens to get. If he or she achieves a majority, the post is 50% plus one. But if the winner is elected simply with a plurality, the post could be 45%, 40% or even lower. By contrast, AV really is a first-past-the-post contest, with the post fixed at 50% plus one. As it should be.
At the heart of the debate, though I haven’t seen it expressed in these terms, lies a fundamental conundrum about the role of a Member of Parliament in Britain’s constitutional system. Under the constituency model, the MP is charged with representing the views of his or her specific constituents in Parliament. The local MP is the person can people turn to if they are having a problem dealing with their local authorities. A question asked in the Commons, or an MP's letter to a Minister, may influence a local planning decision. Viewed simply at the constituency level, the existing system probably does make sense - or at least the argument for change is not so compelling as to offset its undoubted simplicity. But when voters cast their vote for a parliamentary candidate they are also indirectly voting for a Prime Minister, a Cabinet, and the policies they bring with them. And therein lies the problem with first-past-the-post. On a national, as opposed to constituency, level, the fact that MPs can be elected merely with a plurality of the vote results in the effective disenfranchisement of a large section of the populace who do not vote for either of the two major parties. The situation is actually even worse than the raw figures indicate, because many people end up voting for the Labour or Conservative candidate simply because they believe a vote for the LibDems or some other party would be "wasted". Adoption of AV wouldn't solve this problem, but it would help, and it would better balance the merits of true proportional representation against the benefits of Britain's traditional constituency system. (A further step forward would be to replace the existing House of Lords, currently crammed - literally -to overflowing with aging party grandees and political cronies, with an elected chamber utilizing larger multi-member constituencies and a system of proportional representation.)
I believe AV would have some ancillary benefits too. Asking voters to rank candidates rather than pick out a single name could encourage voters to examine the policies of all parties more critically and could foster informed debate. Candidates themselves would have a greater incentive to reach out to all voters, not merely the party faithful.
Cameron argues that it would be "unfair" if the first choice candidate isn't elected, but that supposed "unfairness" has to be weighed against the fact that two thirds of sitting MPs were elected with less than 50% of the vote. Is that "fair"? And at a time when public cynicism of politics is the order of the day, voters are increasingly likely to cast votes strategically and vote against the candidate they don't like, rather than in favor of the one they do. In other words, first choice may not really mean first choice. I think AV clearly wins the fairness test. And as a Labour MP pointed out in the Commons last week, if David Cameron believes it is unfair if the candidate with the highest number of first choices isn't elected, he should resign his post in favor of David Davis, who beat him in the first round of balloting for leadership of the Conservative party. It took three rounds of voting for Cameron to "pass the post" and secure a majority of votes. If AV is good enough to elect the Tory leader (and his Labour counterpart), can it really be that "unfair"?
The argument that AV would allow some people to vote more than once is downright silly. Everyone's vote is counted in each round; those who support the first-round front runner still have their votes counted if a second round is required. And the suggestion that AV would favor extremist parties is groundless scare-mongering. In fact the odious British National Party has joined Cameron is opposing a change in the current system. It is telling that when all's said and done the best argument Cameron can muster in favor of first-past-the-post is its "simplicity".
Whatever the outcome, the future of the coalition looks less than rosy. The debate over AV has taken on a decidedly nasty tone and the once cosy relationship between "Dave and Nick" (so cosy, in fact, that their first joint news conferece in the garden of Number 10 was likened to a gay marriage) now looks decidedly frosty. Senior LibDem figures have appealed to Labour supporters to join them in defeating the "forces of reaction" - i.e., the very people with whom they have chosen to join in government. These comments won't quickly be forgotten quickly, whatever the outcome. Let's be clear. I have no sympathy with the current LibDem leadership, who fought the last election with arguably the most progressive agenda of all three parties, yet sacrificed most of it in a second in return for a handful of seats at Cameron's Cabinet table. It's easy to understand why many in the Labour party would like to see Nick Clegg humbled. But the principle is too important to allow the outcome of the vote to turn on short-term political advantage. Let's hope Clegg & Co. win this one.
Posts
