To AV or AV not?
I’d intended writing something about the Osama bin Laden assassination, but figured I’d wait until the US government get their story straight. The lovely Citizen S seems to think that these daily revisions of what happened are all about sowing confusion and deliberately creating a fertile breeding ground for conspiracy theories. I don’t see what Obama’s administration gains from that strategy, but I must admit that I can’t come up with a better explanation for their inability to stick to a single version for more than a few hours.
So I’ve decided to hold off on that issue until things get a bit clearer (which may never happen of course). Instead let me take a few moments to urge my UK readers to consider voting “Yes” in the referendum on the Alternative Voting (AV) system. Those of you who were paying attention in the run up to the last UK general election will recall that I advised voting for the Liberal Democrats on the single issue of electoral reform. Given how disastrous they’ve been in government, I can only apologise for that. In fact, they’ve been so disastrous that I’ve heard people seriously argue for a “No” vote on the grounds that it would punish Nick Clegg. While I completely understand the level of betrayal that many feel (remember, I voted Green in the 2007 Irish election!) “punishing Nick Clegg” is an absurd rationale for rejecting electoral reform.
Don’t get me wrong, if after careful consideration you decide that First Past The Post (FPTP) is a fairer and more democratic system than AV, then by all means vote “No” in the referendum. Frankly I consider that a mystifying position to take (you can pretty much prove on an etch-a-sketch that while AV is far from a perfect voting system, it’s definitely better than FPTP if fairness and democracy are your chief concerns) but we’re all entitled to our opinion, however ridiculous.
Thus far I’ve heard the following arguments in favour of a “No” vote…
Punish the Lib Dems
Yes, the Liberal Democrats have betrayed those who elected them. The notion that they were anything other than a bunch of free market capitalists was always deluded. That they embraced conservative economic policies and propped up a right wing government shouldn’t surprise anyone who cast an informed vote in their direction last year. So if you voted for them because you thought they were “of the left” (as many people apparently did) then you’ve not been betrayed. You were simply ill-informed. However, that the Lib Dems have so cravenly backtracked on unambiguous promises, without putting up a fight or making any sustained public objection, is a clear betrayal. And they deserve to be hung out to dry as a result.
Nonetheless, it would be utterly insane to “punish” the Liberal Democrats for breaking promises by turning your back on the one promise they kept. They secured a (desperately watered-down) referendum on electoral reform. It’s the single good thing to have emerged from this coalition of the craven. Be a shame to waste it really. After all, if you want to punish Clegg because he’s accepted a role as Cameron’s lackey, then it implies it’s Cameron you have the bigger problem with. Right? So why not punish him instead? He wants you to vote “No”.
Besides, this referendum – the first direct say you’ve had in national policy since 1974 – isn’t about Nick Clegg, or about any single political party. It’s about the political system itself. It’s about making it fairer and more representative. Allowing personality or party politics to influence your decision on this is surely defeating the whole point of a referendum. This is a free vote. No party whips. It transcends the petty grievances of today and its effects will be felt long after Nick Clegg has been consigned to an historical footnote in a dull book.
FPTP is better at producing strong, stable government
Well, let’s break that down shall we? It was the current, FPTP system that gave Britain this rather unsavoury coalition of arseholes. If you look at Cameron, Osbourne and Clegg and the words “strong and stable” are the first to come to mind then may I suggest you get yourself a more expansive vocabulary. But that’s not really the point. See, while I dispute the fact that FPTP tends to produce strength and stability, let’s assume for a moment it’s true. It begs the two word question… so what?
See, there’s no doubt that having a strong and stable government is a bonus. But it’s very much a secondary concern for those who want their democratic elections to be… well… democratic. Isn’t it obvious that the first concern should be electing a government that’s actually vaguely representative of what the people voted for? If “strength and stability” are your primary concerns, then fascist dictatorship wins that particular race every time. Seriously, if you see the production of strength and stability as being the function of an election, then why not check out Saddam Hussein’s version of democracy. It’s the same one they use in North Korea. Every few years the population shows up at the polling booth and votes for the one name on the ballot paper. Pretty much guarantees you won’t end up with a coalition.
So if you like the idea of narrowing choice and reducing representation, then it makes sense to follow the advice of the BNP and vote “No” tomorrow. Strength and stability before proportionality. It’s a fine, if slightly unwieldy slogan I guess.
AV is too complex
Perhaps the most bizarre claim of all. The “No” campaign is apparently insisting that British people are too thick to list things in order of preference. Now, I lived in the UK for a fairly long time and while I met my share of thick people there, I wouldn’t say it was more than I met anywhere else. No doubt there are people in Britain who, when asked to list their top five albums of all time, don’t agonise over whether The White Album is better than Astral Weeks but instead agonise over what the word “list” means. But there can’t be that many of them surely. Certainly not enough to warrant making them the central demographic for a national political campaign.
Here in Ireland we’ve got a semi-proportional Single Transferable Vote system with multi-member constituencies. That’s waaay more complicated than AV. But except for the people who stare at their ballot paper wondering what number comes after “1”, we all pretty much grasp it. So when someone tells you that AV is too complicated for you, they are lying to you and they are insulting you. Which means it’s unlikely they have your best interests at heart.
AV is more expensive
Nope. It’s really not. Leastways, it doesn’t need to be. Yes, the referendum itself is going to cost money, but that money’s being spent whatever way it turns out. It’s not like the treasury gets a refund if the nation votes “No”. And the notion that voting by AV will require expensive voting machines, or expensive counting machines, is complete nonsense. Sure, you can invest in those things if you want, but they’re not a prerequisite for an election under the AV system. Here in Ireland, with our even more complicated system, we manage perfectly well voting with a pencil and counting by hand. Sure, we still elect terrible governments, but sadly no voting system can stop that happening. That’s down to the quality of the candidates and the willingness of the electorate to believe any old bullshit.
Bullshit like how expensive, complex and unstable AV is.
It’s not Full Proportional Representation
No, it’s not. AV should produce a more proportional result than FPTP because it will reduce tactical voting and increase the number of “swing seats”. But it’s far from fully proportional. It won’t eliminate tactical voting completely, and there’ll still be safe seats and swing seats. But rejecting a better system because it’s not the best system doesn’t make much sense. Especially since there’s no evidence that sticking with FPTP will increase the likelihood of full PR. In reality the opposite is probably true. Rejecting AV will allow those in favour of FPTP to insist that the British people don’t want change. And some of those in favour of electoral reform will decide it’s a vote loser.
A vote for AV will strengthen the position of those who claim that Britain wants a fairer system. A vote against AV will weaken that position.
Ultimately though, it’s in your hands Britain. You have it in your power to make your democracy marginally more representative. Alternatively, you can voice your support for ‘politics as usual’. How’s that working out for you?
Good summary. And yes, it has been a more than usually unpleasant campaign. I’ll still be voting “no”. I’ll try and explain my reasoning:
1) The lib dems are no longer a political party I wish to support. They are no longer a political party I wish to see in government. They are, as you say, propping up a right wing Tory government. I consider this Tory government to be a bad thing.
2) AV is not, in and of itself, that good. It is arguably “a little better” than FPTP. I’d be prepared to argue about the relative merits of AV and FPTP if it weren’t for the fact that AV has one particular aspect I don’t like…
3) It benefits the lib dems! Voting behaviour might change under an AV system, but most of the projections I’ve seen show that the main effect of AV will be to increase the lib dem seat count in parliament.
4) This means that the lib dems will be more likely to be the “kingmakers” in any future coalition government. As I make clear above, I no longer wish to see the lib dems in government. And crucially…
5) I don’t trust the lib dems to achieve further electoral reforms. If the effect of AV is to grant them a near-permanent place in government (as plurality swings back and forth between the two other parties) then why should they? (Not that I’m persuaded that PR will magically make our political culture better. Italy has a type of PR, no?)
The problem with arguing, as you do, that this is about making the system “fairer and more representative” is that we cannot put aside our political values when deciding on the kind of political system we want.
I’m quite happy with the fact that FPTP benefits the Labour party. Not because I am particularly enthusiastic about Labour, but because I think that a Tory government is unfair in and of itself.
May 5th, 2011 | 4:21am
by TomJ
I’m voting No, because although I’m opposed to the current system I think AV’s even worse – and I’m not prepared to gamble on AV being a step towards PR, when it could just as easily close the door on electoral reform for a generation (“you wanted electoral reform, you’ve got electoral reform”). More here.
May 5th, 2011 | 7:36am
by Phil
In all honesty, Phil, it seems far more likely – to me anyway – that a “No” vote will slam the door on electoral reform. Your rationale (“You wanted electoral reform, you’ve got electoral reform”) actually contains the phrase “You wanted electoral reform”. The spin that will be put on a “No” contains the phrase “You didn’t want electoral reform”. From a psychodynamic point of view, that slams the door much harder with regards to any future progress.
May 5th, 2011 | 11:18am
by Jim Bliss
Tom, as I pointed out above, everyone is obviously entitled to vote as they see fit. Your rationale, however, is essentially based entirely on party politics. Perhaps it’s just the fact that we have a lot more referenda over here in Ireland, but we’ve come to value them precisely because they allow us a direct voice on policy completely sidestepping party politics (leastways the folks I know).
To vote against AV because it might help the Lib Dems is also a vote for FPTP because helps the tories (it’s the Lib Dem association with the tories that is driving your position if I’m reading you right). And against AV because it might help the Greens. If you’ve chosen to make your vote about party politics, then it seems bizarre to reinforce a system that guarantees a healthy tory presence in parliament because… you don’t like the tories.
Anyway, the outcome won’t be decided on this little blog, written by a foreigner. But I have to say that I’m bamboozled by the decision to embrace FPTP for another generation (for that is what will happen… the Lib Dems are finished for many years once this coalition dissolves and you’re back to two party politics; neither of which genuinely see electoral reform as a priority). I honestly see this as a classic example of an electorate voting against its own best interests (for further examples see the last Irish General Election, Dubya Bush’s second term, or the tory victory in the last UK General Election).
May 5th, 2011 | 11:27am
by Jim Bliss
School dinner analogy…
Every day at school they serve boiled turnips for dinner. You’ve grown to hate boiled turnips.
One day the school bully convinces the cafeteria to hold a vote. You can choose to continue having boiled turnips every day, or you can have cabbage instead. You don’t much like cabbage, but it’s marginally better than boiled turnips.
Some of the kids vote against cabbage because they want to see the bully humiliated.
Some of the kids vote against cabbage because they wanted chips instead.
And so you condemn yourself and – in all likelihood – another 30 years of pupils to boiled turnips for dinner (the “No” to cabbage option didn’t include an implied “Yes” to chips).
Admittedly the bully ends up looking a bit silly, but he graduates in a couple of years so really, so what?
May 5th, 2011 | 11:38am
by Jim Bliss
Or: the vote for cabbage passes and the school says “Look how progressive and responsive we are! We’re prepared to grant all our pupils’ requests – with the exception of extremist and utopian demands like chips, obviously!”.
Apart from that, the analogy fails because I genuinely don’t believe AV is ‘marginally better’ than simple plurality.
against AV because it might help the Greens
I’m against AV because it’s even less likely to help the Greens than the current system. It took long enough for Caroline Lucas to get a small plurality of the vote in one constituency; to get 50% of preferences, excluding Labour voters’ preferences (since Labour is likely to be first or second, and hence their lower preferences won’t count) is an even higher mountain to climb.
May 5th, 2011 | 11:59am
by Phil
I think you’re wrong on this Phil. I think a “No” vote today will effectively shut the door on electoral reform in the UK. Neither of the large parties really want it. Labour’s half-hearted support is partly motivated by a desire to put distance between them and the tories and it will evaporate completely if the people reject AV.
A “No” vote will be seen as embracing the status quo and the issue will die with the Lib Dems (who will be royally shafted in the next election and will either disintegrate or spend a decade and a half rebuilding in the wilderness).
I feel AV is marginally better than FPTP. You disagree, and that’s fair enough; neither of us are likely to convince the other that they’re wrong about that.
What I do find odd, however, is the idea that a rejection of AV is more likely to advance the cause of genuine PR than an acceptance will. That just doesn’t ring true for me. As you yourself said above, a “Yes” vote contains the statement “I want electoral reform”, even if it doesn’t bring about the reform you actually wanted. However much you may wish otherwise, a “No” vote will carry the statement “I don’t want electoral reform”.
May 5th, 2011 | 1:50pm
by Jim Bliss
Tom-
1) If you no longer wish to support the LibDems, are you happy to support the Tories? A vote for FPTP is a vote for disproportionate Tory and Labour power.
2) As Jim’s already said, AV is not good, but it is better than FPTP. When being asked to choose between bad and worse, why would you choose worse? It’s like in Should I Stay Or Should I Go – ‘if I go there will be trouble, if I stay there will be double’. Well going is bad but staying is twice as bad, so whilst it’s not a truly enticing option you’re obviously better to go.
3) FPTP benefits Labour and the Tories. Do you really want to vote for that?
4) It means there may well be more coalitions, yes. They won’t automatically include the LibDems though.
5) You don’t have to trust the libdems to get future reforms. Pressure for that comes from anyone who wants to see it. If future reforms are what you want then you have to take steps towards them. When Wales voted no to devolution in 1979, they got no increase in powers. When they voted yes in 1997, they got a crap Assembly, which has had increased powers given to it. This is the way grey politics works. Had they voted no in 1997 because the Assembly on offer was a diluted talking-shop, they wouldn’t have the strengthened assembly they’ve got today.
May 5th, 2011 | 4:36pm
by Merrick