The central plank of the ‘Yes to AV’ campaign is disingenuous because its claims about AV being fairer than ‘First Past the Post’ are based on a false premise.
AV will make no difference to a large number of constituencies where candidates secure more than 50% of the votes cast. Even in the last general election - where popular support for the parties was closer than normal - more than a third of the candidates had over 50% of the vote.
In the other constituencies, introducing AV could see second or even third placed candidates ultimately winning. That is the very antithesis of democracy. Our existing system is considerably more democratic by comparison and is well understood by the electorate at large. How can it be right for fringe party supporters to have their vote counted several times, while those backing mainstream candidates only have one vote counted? By any measure of fairness that is just plain wrong.
Furthermore, at a time when the country is facing unprecedented cuts, this whole debate and referendum is a colossal waste of time and money, particularly when very few people actually want electoral reform. I have campaigned for the Labour Party in every local, European and general election since 1976 and I can honestly say nobody has ever raised this issue on the doorstep.
The Labour Party is Britain’s best vehicle to deliver progressive change and the outcome of the last general election offers an historic opportunity to rebuild Labour’s progressive credentials. That is why I am working for a majority Labour government at the next general election by appealing to those progressives who voted for other parties. By muddying the electoral waters through the introduction of AV, the guy ropes of Labour’s progressive big tent could be cut even before it is fully erected.
The Liberal Democrats, who are responsible for installing this vicious right-wing administration, hope that AV would create continuous coalition government and give them the chance to be perpetual kingmakers. But Liberal Democrats are not a national party and their support in a few regional enclaves is inadequate to propel them into government without doing shabby little deals behind closed doors. Their shameful pact with the Conservatives will create untold hardship to millions of citizens and is damaging our economic recovery.
Do we really want to increase the prospects of Liberal Democrats having influence in future governments, when under our existing system they could and should be virtually wiped out? I think not. That's why I don’t want to see them being thrown the lifeline of electoral reform.
AV is bad news for democracy, bad news for progressive change and bad news for the millions of people who need the return of a Labour government at the earliest opportunity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"In the other constituencies, introducing AV could see second or even third placed candidates ultimately winning."
ReplyDeleteOnly where the candidate gaining the most first preferences is so widely despised by the majority that they don't pick up any second preferences - i.e. representative of minority views.
"...this whole debate and referendum is a colossal waste of time and money, particularly when very few people actually want electoral reform"
Polls are suggesting that many people do want electoral reform. Quite rightly they will prioritise tax and spending, crime, education and health in their discussions but it is disingenous to say that constitutional reform (including voting reform) is not critical to ensure that the democratic process adequately represents people's preferences.
I hear this line from politicans all the time but I know that many people (including myself) have written to their local MPs so it is simply not true.
"Liberal Democrats are not a national party and their support in a few regional enclaves is inadequate to propel them into government without doing shabby little deals behind closed doors. Their shameful pact with the Conservatives will create untold hardship to millions of citizens and is damaging our economic recovery."
And their current polling suggests they will be decimated under either the current or an AV system at the next election. This is not a reason not to support electoral reform.
"AV is bad news for democracy, bad news for progressive change"
Except that under the current system the votes of progressives are not adequately represented due to tactical voting - under AV the first preferences of those supporting Greens and similar can be represented in the headline voting breakdown but second preferences support ultimately a Labour candidate.
Why shouldn't you or every other MP in the 2/3rds of constituencies have to obtain 50% of the votes cast? Do you really have a mandate on 32%? If you can't get a majority of the electorate in your constituency to support you do you really deserve to represent that constituency?
ReplyDeleteFPTP institutionalises tactical voting. If you're a LibDem in a seat where LibDems can't top the vote, they either vote for Labour or the Tories. A lot of people choose to vote for their 2nd or 3rd pref under FPTP why shouldn't we give them the ability to display their true preferences. Yes, a second place candidate in the 1st round may end up "winning" but democracy isn't a race, its about representing and an MP should represent the broadest possible range of views in their constituency so why shouldn't an MP have to gain 50% of the support in their constituency.
AV doesn't necessarily mean more coalitions. You can still gain a majority government. You have to win a majority of votes in 301 constituencies. Regardless whether other parties have gained huge majorities in the other 299 constituencies. If anything this will favour Labour. Most Labour MPs who have a majority have 1 or 2 percent above the 50% with low turnouts whereas Tories have huge majorities with high turnouts. FPTP has stopped working as a system that returns single party governments due to the amount of safe seats & the fewer number of marginal seats.
The LibDems are more of a national party than the Tory party.
Why should Labour or the Tories gain a majority if they don't gain a majority of the public vote?
If you don't want people to vote LibDem or BNP or UKIP or Green or SNP/PC then convince them to vote Labour instead of fixing the system so that the people who vote for them don't get represented plus we don't vote for the government we vote for representatives and AV is better, fairer and more democratic in nearly every other regard than FPTP.
No-one is suggesting it will make a difference in the safest seats where the winning party gets ~50% or more. But the big difference will come in all the other seats, where the winner will need to get the backing of a bigger number of voters to get elected. I don't see why MPs are afraid of this: why are you scared of trying to get more people to vote for you ahead of your opponents?
ReplyDeleteAV will elect the candidate with the most overall support. Some MPs came first but with more than 2 in 3 electors voting against them. Those 2 in 3 could between them prefer someone else. Why should 1-in-3 minority voters get their way ahead of 2-in-3 majority?
Every vote is counted the same amount. The last place candidate gets knocked out, their votes redistributed, then every vote for the remaining candidates is counted again.
If it is a waste of time and money to have a referendum on AV, why did your manifesto support a referendum on AV? Your constituents may not have specifically mentioned electoral reform, but I bet they've mentioned MPs' expenses and expressed apathy at politics and politicians. The two are deeply interlinked. The way be do democracy in this country needs root and branch reform, so that the public no longer feel taken for granted.
I don't care what effect AV will have on any specific party. I want a system that's fair to voters, not one that puts some parties above others. You care about the effect it could have on Labour. Fine, but don't pretend you are picking the electoral system out of fairness rather than self-interest.
No-one really knows what effect AV will have on creating majority vs. coalition governments, but assuming your guess is right, the only reason that the Lib Dems are kingmakers is because Labour and the Conservatives belligerently refuse to work with each other. Don't blame the Lib Dems for your own belligerence.
"Liberal Democrats are not a national party and their support in a few regional enclaves" ...Absolute tosh. The reason the Lib Dems don't get many seats is because their support is too spread across the country, with too few regional enclaves. FPTP rewards divisive parties with strong regional enclaves. That's why Labour automatically win most seats in the urban North, and the Tories win most seats in the rural South. If Labour is your idea of a national party, remind me how many seats you won in South England last year?
I'll tell you what is a shabby deal: a single party taking the reins of the country when most people don't want them. But that's what happened in 2005, when Labour got into power despite 65% of the country voting for against you. But the same thing has been happening for decades. No wonder people feel so disillusioned by politics. At least with a coalition, the majority of people voted for the a party that's in power, even if that means the parties coming to a compromise.
Don't forget, if we go back to 2 party politics, for every majority Labour government there'll be a majority Tory government waiting in the wings to have it all their way. You may feel the Lib Dems aren't dampening the Tories enough - well that's an argument to make sure the Lib Dems get more of their fair share of influence rather than less.