Why would the LibDems do this? They”ll get the tory second prefs anyway so why alienate everyone else?

There is a better argument than self-interest for Labour campaigning in favour of the Alternative Vote. It is a better and more democratic system. [...] some MPs are currently elected on less than 30% of the vote which is a scandal.

Please print these statements in bold, 100pt lettering and post to all the dinosaurs in the Labour Party who are in opposition to AV.

I agree that Labour should not base its position on AV on self-interest. It should do so by evaluating the arguments for and against AV, perhaps not on a whole party basis but allowing members to campaign for or against as they see fit.

I’ve said my piece on AV before, but to repeat, I support a(ny) proportional system and thus can’t endorse either AV or FPTP. The “50%+” myth is demonstrably false because it assumes that voters will cast all of their preferences, which is unlikely to happen unless doing so is mandatory. Perhaps candidates will need a broader spectrum of support amongst their community, which can’t be a bad thing. But promoting misconceptions like this just gives the No campaign more ammunition as it’s very easy to refute and makes the Yes crowd look dishonest.

What Labour should have done, of course, was support Caroline Lucas’ amendment to get a proportional option on the referendum ballot. But many Labour MPs are sceptical of voting reform, sadly largely for reasons of self-interest.

(At least you didn’t use the “AV is a stepping stone to PR!!1!!1!” argument, which makes even less sense than the 50%+ one).

Jackie Ashley is right in the Guardian. In the end however imperfect AV is, there is a 2 to 1 majority in favour of electoral reform, and when it comes to the crunch enough of those who would prefer STV or some other variant will vote in favour of AV on the basis of better something than nothing.

Should the Labour party not push hard FOR AV it will be a huge mistake both for the Labour party, and for the chances of the centre left generally.

“ut to repeat, I support a(ny) proportional system and thus can’t endorse either AV or FPTP.”

Would you support AV on a tactical basis if it meant real proportionality came a step closer?

Jimmy- there are other options for Tory voters. And you don’t have to express multiple options.

Mr S Pill- please do!

Planeshift,

I suppose I would. But I have yet to hear a convincing argument on why that should be the case.

I really hope Labour stick to the spirit of their manifesto pledge-

“To ensure that every MP is supported by the majority of their constituents voting at each election, we will hold a referendum on introducing the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons.”

OK, the coaliton nearly all of us here are unhappy with one way or another has delivered on part of a 2010 Labour party manifesto policy- we’re getting a referendum on FPTP Vs AV. AV has it’s flaws, but if we’re sticking with single MP constituencies as the Tories seem to favour this format (as do quite a few Labour MPs as well) I firmly believe AV to be a better system under these circumstances. The way that sentence is constructed leads me to think that officially Labour support AV, despite Andy Burnham’s recent self-interested ‘fence-sitting’ comments about the referendum campaign.

Quibbling over whether LibDem voters will or won’t give 2nd preferences to Labour not only seems to gloss over what else will happen with the campaigns of various parties but it also reduces the decision about whether to change the voting system to a mere party-political squabble when really it isn’t.

This debate is almost becoming a fight between those who want to give voters a better kind of choice regardless of who they may or may not vote for & those that just want to look at how much their chosen party may or may not gain from this system or that. If you want to get down to the basics of the usual sniping party political side of things, it’s this- if you back the No vote, regardless of if you really want STV or another form of PR, what you’re actually saying is that you want FPTP & that you side with the Conservatives rather than Ed Miliband, (hopefully) the majority of the Labour party, the Green party, LibDems, Greenpeace, Friends Of The Earth & the NUS (and also UKIP, most recently).

By voting & supporting the No campaign you also say that you think it’s all good & fine that candidates can win elections with only 30-35% of the vote. Don’t let what you think is the perfect answer be the enemy of what is actually a good answer.

*waves*
Not all left-leaning Lib Dems have left the party. Reality has not yet become a Labour wet dream.
Besides, if I ever did leave (if control orders and child detention haven’t been sorted by next year, say), t’would be the Greens for me. It’s like people have forgotten the last 13 years.

Andy, if you had a choice between me giving you a quid or giving you nothing would you choose nothing because I wasn’t offering a tenner?

That effectively is your argument as far as I can see. It is madness to vote against AV because it is not PR. AV is still better than the status quo.

@9

Hear hear!

9

You must be feeling kinda lonley I imagine!

Trust me, we haven’t fogotten the last 13 years. Nor have we forgotten the alacrity with which some of your party colleagues threw over their previous commitments.

For those of us now thoroughy disillusioned with both the Labour/New Labour/Newer Labour AND LD brands….. it’s not as though we’re exactly spoilt for choice is it?

The one thing the LD’s might get some credit for is helping to bring about AV… we can but hope!

Anthony – Yes there are other options of course but these are unlikely as a rule to last longer in the race than the LibDem. Some votes of course will not transfer but it does not affect the central point which is that a voting pact may have clear advantages for the tories there is little benefit to the Lib Dems.

Neil, what you’ve missed out is that I don’t consider AV “better than the status quo.” As far as proportionality is concerned (which is what I’m primarily interested in), it’s just as bad. To use your analogy, by my reckoning it is like you offering me a pound coin or two 50p pieces, when I want a tenner.

I’m inclined to vote ‘yes’ to AV…but then unlike others – let’s say Polly Toynbee and the editorial team at the Guardian – I’m not so naive to think that it will automatically produce the progressive coalition I’d like, because that’s not what happens elsewhere (Germany under Kohl and the CDU/CSU/FDP coalition springs to mind). It could merely produce a more democratically legitimate version of the coalition we have now, with the right-leaning LibDems still in charge of their half of the panto horse.

It isn’t true that all winning candidates would get 50% of all votes cast under AV, unless you had compulsory preferencing.

I wouldn’t even have bothered pointing out this obvious little mistake, but there are comments above indicating this untruth is believed by some.

@ 14

“Neil, what you’ve missed out is that I don’t consider AV “better than the status quo.” As far as proportionality is concerned (which is what I’m primarily interested in), it’s just as bad. To use your analogy, by my reckoning it is like you offering me a pound coin or two 50p pieces, when I want a tenner.”

I’m not going to delve further into that analogy, but proportionality isn’t the only issue. What AV does (imperfectly) is to stop the three main parties getting an artificially high share of the vote due to tactical voting.

Imagine you have a constituency where under FPTP the Lib Dems got 40%, Labour 30%, Tories 15%, Green 10%, Other 5%. Under the first AV election, people who understand the system vote for their preferred party first and a safety party second. It turns out that a lot of them are Greens, who get 25% of the vote and help to second-preference the Lib Dems back into power. Five years later, people are becoming more familiar with the system and are taking the Greens more seriously, and suddenly the Greens are in. Under AV that constituency would have bounced from Labour to Lib Dem for all eternity.

Oh, and the reason we don’t want PR on the ballot is that it’s going to be hard enough to win in a straight fight with FPTP, assuming we get that far. PR would split the reform vote down the middle, handing the victory to FPTP by default. Screw that. After the AV vote, regardless of which way it goes, I’ll happily back you on PR. Not till them.

Andy:

The first problem with voting “no” (as I see it) is that a vote against AV will be construed by the political establishment and media as an affirmative preference for FPTP, or at least a vote against “change”. They won’t necessarily see the subtlety of some of the people voting against AV because they want STV.

AV may be not much better in outcome terms; but unless I see suggestions it is actively worse (for example, if the increases in sizes of seats succeed in making it even less representative) I’d rather have it than not.

Plus, I think something that’s often overlooked about AV over FPTP is that due to the reduction in (or at least change in the nature of) tactical voting, support for minor parties is at least publicly counted and publicised, even if it doesn’t immediately result in seats. Currently it’s suppressed, and no-one really knows what proportion of the population sympathise with the Greens (or indeed BNP*) but don’t want to “waste their vote”. That could, in the long term, make the political system a bit more open.

People are more likely to vote for smaller parties if others did last time. I’d also argue that incontestable electoral data on the level of support for smaller parties would actually increase the pressure for further reform, not dampen it.

(* Though I’m not convinced the BNP vote really would go up much in comparison to other small parties: I suspect most BNP sympathisers already vote BNP since they likely either (A) are enraged enough not to vote tactically or (B) don’t understand tactics. Or both.)

I may be happy enough with AV but I cannot support the gerrymandered boundaries, the reduced representation or fixed-terms of 5 years. Why does everyone here seem to think it’s only about AV?

What about the timing too? Isn’t that a bit cynical, saying F-Off to the regions?

Right now anything that reduced the LibDems to a rump smaller than the BNP would be good so FPTP suits me fine.

By all means support AV, but unless we can vote on it by itself I cannot see how we should support it.

Can I point out the anti-principle view against AV

People don’t care. The public largely don’t much care about electoral reform. They report caring much more about the NHS (RCN predicts 26,000 nurses will go) Education (tuition fees are about to rise – teaching assistants are being laid off) Policing (thousands of cops to be made redundant) and so on.

So it might be that they feel by voting down AV and thus voting against the Lib Dems and taking away their supporters only straw for clutching to – they might ut a bit of pressure on them to consider ending this small-state agenda that makes accusations of Blair being thatcherite look like sarcasm.

More likely of course it will just lead to the remaining lib dems to attack labour for failing to support reform.

But since they won’t similarly attack the Tories that will cement them as an instinctively right-leaning parliamentary grouping and thus ensure the “left” unify around one party and have a chance of winning the next election.

@10. AV results in less proportional results than FPTP. I suppose (given the obvious bit of evidence following on from my cklaim is “AV would’ve resulted in the Tories on 30% getting 80 seats and the Lib Dems on 18% getting 110 in 1997″), your answer is “Good! Tory scum!” Fair enough, but let’s not pretend Labour supporters who support that potential result are noble philanthropes working for a fairer, more proportional, system, either as a first resort or a stepping stone.

Really the question Labour AV supporters are posing is “if you had a choice between me giving you a quid or giving you nothing would you choose a quid, given it’s a baby-eating Tory quid, just because I wasn’t offering a tenner?”

@15. Germany doesn’t have AV. It has AMS. Ah but it’s all not-FPTP so it’s all the same eh?

@1. Shhh. Don’t tell em that Lib Dem 2nd pref transfers after five years of tribalist anti-”Con Dem ner nicky ner ner” blog ranting might not go Labour’s way – don’t spoil the fun eh? ;P

Cherub
The referendum is just about AV

The new boundaries and the 5 year parliaments will go ahead whichever way the vote on AV goes.

So unless you are an MP or a Lord you will only be able to vote on it by itself.

“But I have yet to hear a convincing argument on why that should be the case.”

I’d take a look at the welsh assembly, and see how that how has evolved. Then I’d look back to see what some of the welsh nationalists were saying 13 years ago about the proposals for welsh devolution, and how they were an insult to the cause etc, and then ask if those people think opposing devolution from a welsh nationalist perspective was the correct tactic.

AV may not be what enthusiasts want, but it mixes things up and establishes a norm of preferential voting and opens the space up in future for further reform. Lose the referendum and it will be seen as a rejection of any reform and we’ll be stuck with fptp for decades. Remember, enthusiasts for electoral reform don’t control the MSM, so lack the ability to frame how a defeat will be explained.

I really don’t see why ‘Labour’ should support AV. Fine, support having a referendum (and perhaps push for one with a real PR alternative instead of the possibly-less-proportional AV). Perhaps we can have two ‘No’ campaigns, to encourage the question to be asked whether people are voting no because they want FPTP, or because they see AV as, oh, I dunno, a ‘miserable compromise’.

But the main thing is the boundary changes. The Lib Dems and Tories claim it’s all about equalisation but there are some notable exceptions in Scotland. The removal of review stages from the process will make gerrymandering easier. The push to ignore communities and historical boundaries will lead to confusion, with MPs straddling county and district boundaries.

And even the equalisation won’t actually reduce the ‘bias’ towards Labour that exists at present, because a large part of it is about turnout and distribution of the vote, rather than how the constituencies are set out.

Fixed terms I can go with, but 5 years seems excessive. 4 years is pretty much the norm apart from when a government is fearing losing and holds on as long as it can (1979, 1992, 1997, 2010). It’s purely about keeping this coalition in power as long as possible.

I know that neither of those are going to be covered in the referendum, but they are both in the Bill, and it’s the Bill that is being fought by Falconer (and it seems to be the Bill that Ashley thinks we should not try and delay or split).

@ 21

“AV results in less proportional results than FPTP. ”

Are you basing that on votes cast or voting intentions? I know the latter are slippery as hell, but you really, really can’t judge the proportionality of one system based on votes cast under the other. Especially given that FPTP encourages tactical voting, which AV would go a good way towards sidelining (by relegating it to second-prefs, at least in theory). AV lets you vote for the party or individual you want without concern. That’s the point.

Andy, can you explain why you think AV is no better than FPTP? Facts about AV:- It reduces the number of safe seats thereby increasing competition and accountability, eliminates tactical voting, reduces negative campaigning, makes it harder for extremist parties to win seats, and in practise in Australia has actually increased the proportionality of results. Which of these do you dislike or disagree with?

@ 26

On your side here, but this one surprised me: “makes it harder for extremist parties to win seats”. What’s the basis for that?

“in practise in Australia has actually increased the proportionality of results.”

Really Neil? Such as the Australian Green Party, who won 1 seat under AV on a first-preference vote share of nearly 12%?

As I have said, I view AV as no better than FPTP as it is not proportional. Chaise makes a good point about a reduction in tactical voting, but I think the scenario he proposes, of small parties suddenly winning seats, is overly optimistic. All the estimates I’ve seen seem to entrench the three major parties without allowing any smaller parties a look-in (I take Chaise’s related point, about vote shares under one system not being comparable to another, but I still don’t think any “tactical unwind” would be enough to alter that to any significant degree).

Back to Neil, your point about “extremist parties” doesn’t wash with me. If any party can pick up the votes, it deserves the seats, whether that’s Labour, the Lib Dems or the BNP. It shouldn’t be locked out by an unfair voting system that penalises those who vote for small parties.

On a point of information, I’m not planning to vote No in May. I agree with those who point out that a No vote would effectively be a vote for FPTP. I’m just not planning to vote Yes either – in all likelihood I will spoil my paper.

@22 Keith Underhill

1) Ta!

2) Bugger. Now I’ve got to think about AV.

Andy/28: I view AV as no better than FPTP as it is not proportional

Can I interest you in the “vote from hat” system? It combines the advantages of proportional representation with the advantages of single-seat constituencies, while completely abolishing “safe seats” and encouraging turnout.

If you ask the wrong questions you’ll only get the wrong answers.

That applies to Jackie Ashley, The Guardian, Liberal Conspiracy, most of the authors and commenters on this site, election systems and any referendum on it.

But if you’ve already decided upon the answer you want to recieve then you’re not really asking any meaningful question in the first place.

@Thomas Intriguing- would you like to expand?

@ 31

On the subject of “meaningful”, fancy adding some sort of point to your content-free comment above? A good place to start would be identifying the questions you think are wrong, and then explaining why you think this. Kthxbye

Why are we being offered a narrow political campaign on AV or not AV?

From everything I hear the question on electoral reform will come as a straight package deal – take it all or leave it all.

That is unacceptable.

If we want a serious debate on electoral and constitutional reform then the public needs to be given an opportunity to decide on the whole series of alternatives, even if this involves more wide-raging options on each point.

The odd blog post and 10-minutes on Radio 4 or Newsnight simply isn’t enough to raise all the issues in sufficient depth to a wide enough audience, and that’s why it habitually descends into a self-interested partisan slanging match.

I have yet to see any party engage fully with the public and I particularly haven’t seen the Speaker propose a fully democratic consultation on our political system. His conferences have been stacked with ‘experts’ and ‘officials’ presenting their learned and official positions which we are being expected to swallow as the whole story.

The establishment politicians are giving us a choice of nuts and yet are expecting us not to behave like monkeys.

If it were me I’d demand a Speaker’s roadshow to criss-cross the country to come and ask us how we’d like to cast our X’s and let local parties organise rallies around the stops where they can then fulfil their political role. Instead even the false opposition is emanating from the now-smoke-free rooms of media editors and Whitehall mandarins.

Transparent? Accountable? The partisan nature of commentary makes it far too dangerous for any government to risk their electoral reputations on a meaningful referendum where the choices haven’t been fixed in advance.

So it is the job of the Speaker to lead this debate, and he is to blame for the mess it has already devolved into – just as the previous Speaker was responsible for the expenses scandal which he personally profited from.

Andy – You pick out one party and one result, but overall in Australia as demonstrated in this ERS research, AV has proved more proportional than FPTP would have been. Also do you think the Greens would get 12% of the vote if the election was under FPTP?

AV allows people the freedom to vote for who they really like. You admit that AV reduces tactical voting, even if you don’t accept the other points, surely that makes it better than FPTP?

Which brings me back to my original point, why not vote for a system that has advantages over what we have? Yes it is not PR, but AV is better than FPTP and it needs to be supported as a step in the right direction.

Finally I need to make a complicated point so bear with me, I poiinted out that extremist parties would find it more difficult to get elected under AV but crucially AV would not make it harder for other radical smaller parties to grow. The BNP are unlikely ever to persuade the majority of their views (thankfully), but other smaller parties might do if allowed to develop electorally.

This is another reason that FPTP is bad, a majority might support a smaller parties’ views, but progress is so slow in them winning seats that they never get the chance to grow as people have to vote tactically to not waste their vote, this inertia can take ages for a small party to break down. The Greens getting 12% in general elections in Australia, but only 1% here demonstrates this point.

Under AV smaller parties will get more of a chance because people do not need to take a risk, they can show their first preference and not waste their vote. Proportional systems would be even better at this, but with the side effect of initially giving seats to the BNP as well as other smaller parties.

Now I can hear your argument that that is democracy, you are right, and I would support you in this because although I detest the BNP, I believe the best way of beating them is to expose them not sweep them under the carpet. I think that under PR, the BNP would eventually do worse than they do under FPTP because their policies would be exposed and the Tory press would cease the racist xenophobic propaganda they currently pump out because under PR it would not help the Tory party win seats as it does under FPTP. However it is still worth pointing out that the BNP stand even less chance of winning seats under AV than they do under PR or FPTP despite my belief that PR is ultimately more democratic. I hope you get my point on this.