Leader: Imperfect it may be, but AV is the start of an essential journey

It may not be a proportional system but AV would represent a significant improvement on first-past-t

By Staff blogger Published 20 April 2011

Were one founding a new democracy, it is unthinkable that first-past-the-post (FPTP) would be adopted as the electoral system. It penalises small parties, wastes votes and encourages politicians to concentrate their policies on swing voters in marginal seats. FPTP might have been tolerable in 1955, when Labour and the Conservatives won 96 per cent of the vote and 99 per cent of the seats. But it is unfit for a three-party era in which political loyalties are more fluid. In the last election, Labour and the Tories won just 65 per cent of the vote but ended up with 87 per cent of the MPs. It was with good reason that post-apartheid South Africa, the former eastern bloc countries and the young democracies of Latin America all chose to adopt proportional models of voting, rather than FPTP.

On 5 May, for the first time ever, the British people will have a chance to reject FPTP and replace it with the Alternative Vote (AV). AV is not the system that we would have chosen. In some circumstances, it can lead to even more disproportional outcomes than FPTP. As the Jenkins commission on electoral reform noted, had the 1997 election been held under AV, Labour's majority would have swelled from 179 to 245. A genuinely proportional system, of the kind we support, remains the more desirable option.

But AV would represent a significant improvement on FPTP. It would lead to fewer wasted votes, greatly reduce the need for tactical voting and ensure that most MPs are elected with at least 50 per cent of the vote in their constituency. By requiring candidates to win second-preference votes, it would also encourage the parties to engage with all voters. The adoption of AV would enable the creation of a more pluralistic political culture, in which parties emphasise their similarities, rather than merely their differences.

The relentlessly negative approach of the No to AV campaign has only highlighted the paucity of the arguments for FPTP. In their desperation to preserve the status quo, the opponents of reform have claimed that AV would benefit the British National Party, that it would be "too expensive" and that it would prove to be too "confusing" for the electorate. In reality, no system is better at keeping extremists out; AV would not require expensive voting machines; and a system that is already widely used by businesses, charities and trade unions would not prove too complex for the electorate.

AV is not a panacea and, taken alone, it will not repair Britain's broken democracy. Reform of the voting system must be combined with the creation of a fully elected second chamber and the introduction of a written constitution. An increase in the number of directly elected mayors, as Andrew Adonis writes on page 74, is another measure that could address the democratic deficit. But it would be careless to miss an opportunity to reject the voting system that has done so much to discredit the UK's political system.

Those such as the former Social Democratic Party leader David Owen who have argued for a No vote in the hope of securing a more proportional system in the future are playing a dangerous game. As the Chancellor, George Osborne, has said, a No vote on 5 May would close the question of electoral reform "for the foreseeable future".

Not only would FPTP be preserved but it would be strengthened by a victory for the No campaign. A Yes vote, by contrast, would increase the possibility of a subsequent transition to proportional representation (PR). The claim that there is no appetite among the public for reform will have been exposed as a myth.

If the next election results in a hung parliament, the Liberal Democrats will no doubt demand a referendum on PR as the condition of any coalition. But that is a battle for another day. For now, the priority is to deliver a death blow to the unfair, undemocratic and unrepresentative FPTP system. It is for this reason that we encourage progressives of all parties to vote Yes to AV on 5 May.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: AV referendum Electoral Reform

View the discussion thread.

30 comments

Thu, 2011-04-21 06:18 — Sam Flowers (not verified)

I agree with this Editorial completely and will be voting yes to AV.

Thu, 2011-05-05 16:33 — Tony (not verified)

Radio4 'Today Programme' 04/05/2011 & 2hrs15mins in: Ed Milliband confirms there will NEVER, EVER be a move towards PR if AV wins which he is fighting for. So the 'stepping stone' of AV to PR or further change has just been just a bunch of LIES to get the niave to fight for AV.

Sat, 2011-04-23 11:56 — Attrition47

AV will significantly improve the power of middle-class floating voters. A suitable aspiration for the NS and perhaps the reason for the leader writer favouring the rather illogical argument that the route to democracy is via an undemocratic change to the electoral system.

Thu, 2011-04-28 08:49 — historybuff

If you want Parliament to truly reflect public opinion, why not PR?
AV is actually less democratic than FPTP, as it favors centrist candidates who are the least objectionable. Sometimes you need people to get elected that are not huddled around the middle and are prepared to push the boat out a bit.

Wed, 2011-04-20 14:48 — Mike Green

A yes vote will set back the cause of PR just as much as a no... that is to say that the cause of PR has been dealt a fatal blow already.

AV is less proportional, so it is not obviously a step forward. Referenda are rare, so it is unlikely we would see another change rapidly, but if we did it would most likely be because AV had been seen to fail.

If AV were seen to fail, people would want FPTP back. Nobody says: 'that reform was a disaster, lets go further.'

So stick with the more proportional, least worst system and hope for reform in 20 years. Say no to AV.

Thu, 2011-04-21 10:13 — Willp

Katherine writes, "under FPTP an MP can be elected with much less than 50% of the vote (and is in 2/3 of constituencies)."
But this is also the case under AV.
For example, under AV, you could have a scenario where with 3 parties, on 1st preference votes, Candidate A gets 1000, Candidate B gets 900, and Candidate C gets 800. So A gets a minority of the 1st preference votes. As the favoured candidate failed to secure half the votes on the first count, the second choices of those voters who voted for the least favoured candidate are redistributed.

So C is dismissed and her 2nd preference votes are counted. 500 of Candidate C’s 2nd preference votes went to A and 300 to B. So A is elected, even though on 1st preference votes a majority voted against A.

So in this plausible scenario, AV also allows an MP to be elected with much less than 50% of the vote.
So AV fails to do what Katherine wants it to do.

Lord Jenkins’ 1998 report on voting reform said that AV should be ruled out because it would actually make the system less proportional and less fair.
Without the cushion of gaining AV, LibDem MPs would have to do more to save their seats, e.g. they might have to back the NHS against destruction.

No to AV, sAVe our NHS!

Mon, 2011-05-02 18:45 — Willp

So, Snowy, a reactionary who hates the NHS, backs the Yes campaign!
The Coalition government is trashing the country. The most important question, is how do we stop it?
Voting No to AV will hit the weakest link in the enemy, the LibDems. Voting Yes would boost the LibDems, by encouraging them to unite to stay in the government.
Voting No robs them of their sole justification for supporting the government. Their supporters, unlike the Tories, are not all enamoured of the cuts, the destruction of the NHS, the broken promises on tuition fees, bankers' bonuses, etc, etc.
If Clegg and his miserable band of MPs don't even deliver on AV, then LibDem supporters will want to pull them out of government. This will weaken the government, and may even bring it down, thus saving the NHS.

Wed, 2011-04-20 15:04 — Willp

Why are we having this referendum at a time of national emergency? Answer: the Liberal Democrats want it. In return for propping up this brutal money-loving, people-hating government (remember that Cameron’s Tories didn’t win the election), they have been thrown a sop in the form of this referendum.
The LibDems have always supported proportional representation as the only way they are likely to gain any kind of political power (as not enough people vote for them), and although AV is not that they see it as a step on the road.
So Clegg and his little gang of crooks in government want us to vote for a system which they hope might keep them in power for longer.
AV would lead to more hung parliaments because it would boost the LibDems at the expense of both Labour and Conservatives. According to the independent British Election Study, under AV the LibDems would have got more seats in every election between 1983 and 2010.
The Labour leadership supports AV too, Eds Miliband and Balls campaigning for it on the grounds of “fairness”, like condemned men calling for a fairer length of rope! Labour MPs are less convinced, with over half having signed an ad calling for a No vote.
A much bigger question for British democracy is that there is hardly anybody you would want to vote for in parliamentary elections. AV is a pathetic attempt to give a democratic gloss to the whole sorry spectacle, when the party that “won” in the past three elections got fewer people to vote for it than those who did not vote at all.
We want more referendums, which take power away from discredited politicians; so we must seize this chance to reject their schemes, even on this little matter. But even more, we need a referendum on the life-and-death matter of the membership of the EU.

No to AV!

Thu, 2011-04-21 11:02 — Katherine (not verified)

@Willp

No, the majority did not vote AGAINST candidate A. Just some of their voters in the final round of counting would have preferred C. A was still their preference between A and B.

Voting NO to AV will not save the NHS! If we'd had a AV for the 2010 election the NHS might never have been threatened with reform in the first place! I think the LibDems know they're in trouble no matter what the electoral system. If you really care about the NHS you should be voting for a system that the Tories don't want.

Thu, 2011-05-05 17:54 — Actionfitz

@ Stephen Newton

"So stick with the more proportional, least worst system and hope for reform in 20 years. Say no to AV."

What utter nonsense.
A no to AV will likely mean another twenty years before we are allowed another Referendum on voting reform.

You would scuttle our first chance at voting reform since women won the right to vote in 1928, all because you are bitter that PR was not offered as an option.
By all means hold out for a superior PR voting system... but you'll be holding out through successive conservative governments, enjoying majority's in parliament despite getting 30-40% of the vote.

/sigh.