Gridlock has been the word with which to start in the Lords’ debate over the AV vote bill currently passing through parliament, which must become law by next week if the government is to meet the planned deadline for holding the referendum on the change in the system this May. The bill, if passed, is proposing a switch from the First-Past-The-Post system currently used in both England and the US, to the system of Alternative Vote.
The reform of the voting system, a measure not supported by the Conservatives or even much of the Labour Party, was proposed by the government as part of the coalition deal with the Liberal Democrats, who have long been proponents of a more directly representative electoral system (of which, as the third party, they would be the greatest benefactors). This isn’t the only issue on the table (though it is certainly the main one). Tacked on is a provision that would cut the number of MP from 650 to 600, a move strongly apposed by Labour Peers in the Lords who argue that it would disproportionally damage their electoral prospects, and would prefer to see the two measures separated. They see the cut in the numbers of MPs as leading to higher workload for MPs and a decrease in constituent contact. But, to put it in perspective, research conducted by Robert A. Dahl, Sterling Professor emeritus of political science at Yale, the UK has one elected representative for every 91,000 citizens, whereas the US, in comparison, has one elected representative for every 673,000 citizens.
The debates in the Lords has brought excitement and attention to a chamber which is constantly being attacked for being obsolete and in need of reform. But is this measure they have been fighting for really necessary and, putting aside the reduction in MPs which wouldn’t have as large of an impact, is AV the right system for Britain?
In the current First-Past-The-Post system, the person with the most votes gets elected as MP, and the party with the most MPs in parliament forms a government. If one party does not have an overall majority of MPs, then a ‘hung parliament’ is declared and a coalition is formed – such as what we saw in May 2010. Under an Alternative Vote system, voters would instead all rank candidates in order of preference. If one candidate received more than 50% of the votes in the first round, then that person is elected as MP. If this doesn’t happen, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their second choice is reallocated to the remaining candidates. This continues until one person gets the majority of the cast votes.
I’m not denying that AV wouldn’t shake up the system a little. But it’s hardly the sweeping electoral reform that the Liberal Democrats propel again and again in their election manifestos.
If we look at the last 6 general elections that have been held in Britain, we see that, under the AV system, there would have been the same overall outcome in terms of government. Yes, the liberal democrats would have had won more seats, and scale of the Conservative defeat in 1997 (with the entrance of New Labour) would have been greater, for example. But lets say, hypothetically, that there was going to be radical change under the AV system, is AV good for Britain?
The argument strongly being thrust is that AV would mean that parties with broad based support, rather than concentrated in districts, would have a greater chance to pick up seats in Parliament. They argue the system would grant more legitimacy to MPs due to the requirement to get half of the vote, and would reduce negative campaigning as you may need a coalition of support to get elected.
Those who claim that AV will reduce negative campaigning slightly ignore the very fact that politics is about showing voters why, and how, you and your policies are better than your opponents – a critical part of which is, at times, about ‘going negative’. And, lets be honesty, if they really think that politics in Britain is negative, they need to come over to America and get a taste of Aqua Buddha, Witches and Daisies.
That point aside, Britain has maintained its reputation as one of the most stable democracies due to the strength and reliability of its electoral system. The First-Past-The-Post system, in most cases, returns a majority government to the commons and allows government to rule without a compromise of ideals and backroom dealings. It means that they can act on what they believe will be best for the country, and not what will satisfy the balance of MPs in the Commons. AV is unpredictable, and the fluidity of coalition would lead to a lack of long-term stability and a weakening of party labels and manifestos. The system also gives someone’s 4th or even 5th preference an equal weight to someone else’s 1st choice, with some people effectively getting more votes than others. The votes would take longer to count (in the Australian elections in summer it took 17 days to form a government), which is not an immediate write off but must be taken into consideration when thinking of how long a country can stay stable without a government. AV is not only expensive (both in terms of its implementation and in practice) but it is also unnecessary at a time in which the government is meant to be tightening its purse.
The Tory leadership has come under criticism from its backbench for softening its rhetoric against the proposed changes in order to appease the liberal democrats and ‘sweeten them up’, in hoping to hold the coalition together until the next election in 2015. Yet our voting system is something that is more important than day-to-day politics. It is the essence of representation, of popular politics. It has effects not just on today or tomorrow, but on years and generations ahead. It re-shapes the way that we think about politics and our system, and when the public goes to the polls in May of this year, they need to deeply think of the long lasting affect of this proposed shake up.
(Photo: Yahoo News)
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.