Why I voted No to AV

An explanation of a vote against the liberal consensus.

Unlike being the only gay in the village, being the only liberal on the "wrong side" of a constitutional reform debate is not necessarily a thing to boast loudly about.

Indeed, one cannot be absolutely delighted at the company one is keeping.

But, a couple of months or so on from my post setting out the liberal case against the Alternative Vote system, today I voted "No" to AV.

I do not feel that strongly about the issue, and the introduction of AV would be nowhere near a calamity; that is why I am merely posting an explanation today, rather than a post urging a "No" vote earlier in the week.

And I certainly have no wish for any post of mine to be used again by the hapless, misleading, and disgraceful official No campaign, and certainly no one should vote No by reason of costs, complexity, or Clegg.

All the same, my No vote was on a principled and reasoned basis, and so it may be interesting to others to know what that basis was.

First, I simply do not accept your second or third preferences should have the same weight as my first preference, or vice versa. Here, I am familiar with all the counter-arguments about this not meaning there are "two bites of the cherry" and that everyone (somehow) still has one vote. I am familiar also with the actual mechanism of AV in practice.

However, I just cannot see how a second or third preference should be accorded equal weight with a first preference. For me, this violates the basic principle of equality of votes.

Second, and as a consequence, I cannot accept that adding together first and second preferences, and so on, creates any real - rather than an artificial - majority in an applicable constituency.

Otherwise, AV seems to have exactly the same faults as First Past the Post in regards of proportionality. The legislature will still not reflect the proportions of votes cast overall, and safe seats will still exist. Nothing fundamental will change.

However, this is not an issue to lose either sleep or friends over, and a win for AV today will not upset any sensible person, and it will upset quite a few senseless ones.

Given the expected low turnout, a win for AV may also provide us with the harmless pleasure of hearing its advocates explain the legitimacy of a new voting system which was supported by less than 50 per cent of those entitled to vote.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May is paying the price for mismanaging Boris Johnson

The Foreign Secretary's bruised ego may end up destroying Theresa May. 

And to think that Theresa May scheduled her big speech for this Friday to make sure that Conservative party conference wouldn’t be dominated by the matter of Brexit. Now, thanks to Boris Johnson, it won’t just be her conference, but Labour’s, which is overshadowed by Brexit in general and Tory in-fighting in particular. (One imagines that the Labour leadership will find a way to cope somehow.)

May is paying the price for mismanaging Johnson during her period of political hegemony after she became leader. After he was betrayed by Michael Gove and lacking any particular faction in the parliamentary party, she brought him back from the brink of political death by making him Foreign Secretary, but also used her strength and his weakness to shrink his empire.

The Foreign Office had its responsibility for negotiating Brexit hived off to the newly-created Department for Exiting the European Union (Dexeu) and for navigating post-Brexit trade deals to the Department of International Trade. Johnson was given control of one of the great offices of state, but with no responsibility at all for the greatest foreign policy challenge since the Second World War.

Adding to his discomfort, the new Foreign Secretary was regularly the subject of jokes from the Prime Minister and cabinet colleagues. May likened him to a dog that had to be put down. Philip Hammond quipped about him during his joke-fuelled 2017 Budget. All of which gave Johnson’s allies the impression that Johnson-hunting was a licensed sport as far as Downing Street was concerned. He was then shut out of the election campaign and has continued to be a marginalised figure even as the disappointing election result forced May to involve the wider cabinet in policymaking.

His sense of exclusion from the discussions around May’s Florence speech only added to his sense of isolation. May forgot that if you aren’t going to kill, don’t wound: now, thanks to her lost majority, she can’t afford to put any of the Brexiteers out in the cold, and Johnson is once again where he wants to be: centre-stage. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.