Interesting article.

Best argument I’ve heard against AV, what finally convinced me was this –

When fighting an election there are basically two ways to go about maximising your vote. The first is to appeal to people who are likely to vote but are undecided, the second is to appeal to people who support your party but are less likely to vote.

Labour usually campaigns (under FPTP) by trying to drive up turnout amongst groups more likely to support Labour but less likely to vote – broadly put working class people. The second of those two options.

It is unclear that this strategy would be as effective under AV. With second prefs in play, Labour would instead have to concentrate on those more likely to vote but less likely to vote Labour and indeed those likely to first pref some other party.

I feel that the policy programme aimed at attracting the less likely to vote, more pro-Labour people will be more attractive to a Social Democrat like myself than a platform which aims at winning the second prefs of Liberals, etc.

In Australia there is compulsory voting and so this issue doesn’t arise in the same manner.

I agree sunny.,

If your argument in support of changing a voting system is purely related to the current political setup, which you cannot guarantee will be the case in 10 year’s time, then I can only accuse you of short-termism.

Ultimately, if the argument for AV is that it keeps one party out (patently ridiculous anyway, because exactly the same argument works for a coalition of right-wing and economically liberal elements working against Labour – and this argument has the advantage of facts to back it up), then AV is not about democracy but about imposing your political will on the people regardless of what they want. It seems here that you see AV as an opportunity to impose rule by one ideology. Somehow I do not see that as democratic in any way.

I can’t imagine a WORSE argument for electoral reform than that it’ll ‘keep the Tories out’.

Electoral reform is about changing the system so that the elected government – of whatever hue – best represents the wishes of the electorate – not that it biases the system in favour of the party YOU want.

Opponents argue that this is party political and articles like this feed those arguments.

We need electoral reform because our current system is woefully inadequate, not because Labour lost the election and want to change the rules.

Duncan, I don’t think that characterisation is quite right.

Labour does try and get its vote out – any party would do that. In the run up to the Obama election we focused on identifying sympathising or hardcore Democrat voters and getting them out on the day. GOTV drive, as they call it there and here.

The question is how Labour operates when there isn’t an election on.

My point, using the example of the UKuncut party, is that FPTP distorts people’s preferences and doesn’t give a true impression of what people really think.

So the argument that lefties have ‘nowhere else to go than Labour’ becomes essentially true. That encourages people on the Labour right to argue that since the left have nowhere else to go – the party should court centrists. This is what Blairites argued.

I’ve pointed out in recent analysis that because of this strategy, a lot of people simply stopped voting for Labour from the left

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/13/labour-support-polls-ed-miliband

This idea that the only voters left to campaign for is Libdem voters is just not true. There are lots of people out there sympathetic to Labour, but were just not attracted to its centrism of 2010. That needs to change, and it won’t under FPTP.

Nice article – a welcome change of tone from others I’ve read recently.

However, I’m not sure how FPTP encouraging Labour right-wingers to argue that because people who would normally vote UKuncut have nowhere else to go, Labour should court centrists will be any different from Labour right-wingers arguing that because people who would normally vote UKuncut first have nowhere else to put their second, or third, or whatever preferences if they don’t want a Tory MP, Labour should court centrists.

I’m also not sure about distorting democracy because UKuncut’s true support is under-emphasised. We know in AV that people rank preferences, but we don’t know why. We’re going to get more distortion from people using protest preferences, and we’re going to get the beneficiaries of those claiming support for an entire agenda when that’s not the case.

@1 – It depends on why the people who are more likely to vote Labour but aren’t, aren’t. If they’re not voting because the policies are already geared to attracting undecideds, then the ability to rank parties who they prefer in tone in theory could increase turnout. One strike against that, of course, is in this article – http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/john-curtice-scotlands-experience-of-av-makes-awkward-reading-for-both-camps-2270070.html – which says ‘When counting machines have been used in Scotland, they have revealed that between only a half and two-thirds (!) of voters cast a second preference, and only one in three casts a third.’ Still, I don’t think it’s such a binary choice.

“it encourages Labour right-wingers to argue that because people who would normally vote UKuncut have nowhere else to go, Labour should court centrists.”

But AV makes this even worse. Under plurality voting (‘FPTP’), UKUncut *would* be a spoiler to Labour, and if significant numbers of Labour voters switched to them then it could cost Labour the seat.

But under AV, they don’t really matter; the party has no need to care if, say, a third of its voters prefer UKUncut, or for that matter the Greens, as long as they give a higher preference to Labour than they do to the main rivals in the seat (either Lib Dem or Tory). So it then makes sense for the party to focus their efforts on making sure centrists give Labour a higher preference than the other main parties, not on winning the first preferences of people on the left.

Tom is precisely right – the risk of defections to the Left, and therefore the need to worry about being too right-wing, is greater under FPTP than under AV. Under AV, Labour need only worry about being slightly more left-wing than the other viable parties – it doesn’t need to be the first choice of socialists.

Duncan Weldon,

It would be daft for any political party to switch strategy in the way you describe even under AV. Second preferences would only count for a party that has sufficient first preferences to stay in the race. Parties would still have to focus on first-preferences which will definitely count, ahead of second preferences that may never be counted.

In fact, in some ways there’s more incentive to pander to other parties supporters under the present system, since you have to persuade them to switch outright, whereas under AV, if you can get your nose in front via an increased turnout, there votes may come to you in the later counts.

Under plurality voting (‘FPTP’), UKUncut *would* be a spoiler to Labour, and if significant numbers of Labour voters switched to them then it could cost Labour the seat.

But that won’t happen. And many left of Labour parties have tried this for years without any success.

Keep in mind I’m not as left-wing as the LRC, so the big tent works for me. But the idea that significant numbers of people will easily switch to smaller parties under FPTP is pure fantasy.

It would be called a ‘wasted vote’ and would actually be counter-productive as UKuncut would then be seen as a spoiler vote that would make it easier for Tories to get back in.

“But the idea that significant numbers of people will easily switch to smaller parties under FPTP is pure fantasy.”

And I never said it would happen. Merely that if it did, it would be a problem for Labour. Under AV, even if it *did* happen, it still wouldn’t be a problem for Labour: all Labour need is for left-wing voters to prefer Labour to the other big parties. They don’t need to be their first choice.

There are some places that smaller parties do well, though, if you want a real-life example: try Brighton Kemptown. Tory majority of 3.1%, with 18% Lib Dems, 5.5% Greens, 3.2% UKIP. Under AV, Labour will get vast majority of Green preferences versus the Tories, and Tories the vast majority of UKIP – so why bother to try and attract them? Better to go after the Lib Dems’ second preferences, since they’re susceptible to preferencing either Labour or Tory.

Sunny,

But that won’t happen. And many left of Labour parties have tried this for years without any success.

It won’t happen, or it hasn’t happened yet but still could?

The problem here is that you are either saying that UK Uncut represent a movement incapable of gaining enough support against the Labour party (who remember do not actually support not cutting government spending and therefore represent a different set of options, not merely a different political positioning) to affect election outcomes, or you are saying that despite their popularity, there is no need for Labour to take note of them because their popularity will have no consequences

Scottish council results (using STV and AV) show that Labour, the SNP & the Lib Dems benefit far more than the Conservatives from transferred votes (http://bit.ly/fIMJxV).

Tory voters like the Tory party a lot; supporters of other parties don’t like it at all. AV is very good at keeping out unpopular candidates; FPTP can easily let the least popular candidate win (http://bit.ly/fldUMZ).

To do well under AV a party must be popular enough BOTH to get plenty of first and second places in the initially tally AND to hoover up lots of second and later preferences from the supporters of other parties. A party which fails on EITHER count is likely to do badly.

Being everybody’s second preference wouldn’t help the Lib Dems one jot if few voters picked them as their first choice. Being the first choice of quite a lot of voters wouldn’t help the Tories if other parties’ supporters didn’t given them enough second and later preferences to help them past the 50% mark in any round of counting.

But questions of potential party advantage one way or the other, now or in the future, MUST take second place to the central question: does AV benefit the voter?

- Does it help us to use our vote with greater precision and to have greater certainty as to its effect?

- Does it eliminate the problem of the wasted vote?

- Does it give more of us a say who represents us?

- Does it ensure that candidates who are strongly disliked by most of us can’t squeeze through on a minority vote?

- Does it mean far more of us are represented by MPs in whose election we have at the very least acquiesced?

AV 1, FPTP nil.

“Tories unpopular in Scotland” – you should ring Newsnight, Jonathan. They need to hear this shocking revelation!

Interesting. I’ve argued precisely the opposite – that following the formation of the coalition, AV will benefit the Conservatives and FPTP Labour.

The majority of left-leaning Lib Dems from the last election have *already* moved to Labour in the polls, meaning that FPTP has created a united left but a divided right – from Coalition Lib Dems, through Conservatives to UKIP, which has picked up 2-3% from the Tory right since the election.

It’s true that the left of the Labour party can suffer from a continually centre-looking leadership but (a) that’s where elections are won so it’s the centre or irrelevance and (b) it’s a matter for internal party democracy to sort out; the NEC and conference can give the left a powerful voice if they choose to use it.

Jonathan Phillips,

Leaving aside your four questions (as they are leading – and I could ask equally leading questions the other way) and concentrating on the thread topic.

Scotland is a good example for First Past the Post – there are no Conservative safe seats there now, but there were a generation ago, so there can be obliteration of parties under this system – but because the Conservatives lost their major party position there it is not a good model for how votes would be redistributed nationally. I suspect most people in Scotland are not inclined to vote Conservative apart from a hard core – this is not the case in England and Wales (where there is an observed tendency for voters to change between Conservative and Labour, leaving out the Liberal Democrats).

“- Does it ensure that candidates who are strongly disliked by most of us can’t squeeze through on a minority vote?

“- Does it mean far more of us are represented by MPs in whose election we have at the very least acquiesced?”

Isn’t this – more acquiescence, fewer ‘Marmite’ MPs – a recipe for precisely the sort of “mushy” centrist politics that this article claims won’t happen?

@15

Erm… I did know that.

But in much of England (and Wales) the same sort of pattern is likely to occur, with Labour, Green, LD (and Plaid Cymru) supporters generally more likely to give their second preferences to another of these four rather than to the Tories.

This might not happen if Labour started pursuing aggressively left-wing policies while the Tories returned to Macmillan-style Conservatism, but this seems hardly likely.

Moreover it’s not a question just of policies but of trust, general impression, the perceived personalities of individuals and parties. I for one would always vote for a candidate I felt was solid and trustworthy, even if I didn’t agree with some of his/her policies, rather than for one who made all the right noises but seemed shallow or duplicitous. (“Vote” here referring to first, second or later preference.)

“This then distorts democracy because UKuncut’s true support is under-emphasised. Besides, it encourages Labour right-wingers to argue that because people who would normally vote UKuncut have nowhere else to go, Labour should court centrists. ”

How does this change under AV? UKUncut voters would almost certainly put Labour as second choice (in your scenario). So Labour picks up the votes either way.
Infact FPTP would give UKUncut more leverage, as Labour would need to be wary of losing votes in a tight marginals where a 1000 votes lost to UKUncut could lose them the seat. (This is already happening to the Tories with, que noises on immigration and Europe from Cameron)

AV will introduce a new landscape where certain parties A new left wing party(?) The Greens, UKIP all saw their 1st round %shoot up. But the make up of Parliament would be virtually unchanged. The unknown is would the obvious up front support for the smaller parties give them the publicity and momentum to break through or would this rather strange anomoly remain?

I’m with Owen Jones et al on this one. I fear AV will make politics less ideological (aka less interesting – to me) with a scramble for second preferences leading to even more ‘dog whistles’ and populism than we have at present. (More) soggy, populist centrism has little appeal to me.

AV will also, I believe, massively benefit the LibDems, leading to more coalitions and more rule by the Cleggsters. And given the number of people here who have claimed that the present coalition does not have a mandate, I’m a little surprised that so many people here tend to favour AV when it will inevitably result in coalitions and the prompt abandonment of some manifesto commitments.

Furthermore, at an intuitive level, what I dislike about AV is that second, even third and fourth, preferences have the same weight as first preferences.

@17

I’d like you to answer my points first, please. Then tell me how FPTP benefits the voter.

@18

Certainly MPs who take strong positions can benefit our political life – but is that in itself a reason for supporting their election if most of the people they purport to represent don’t want them as their MP?

But there’s more to it than that. Some at least of these livelier and more interesting MPs are favourably regarded even by those who don’t share some of their views (they are often very good constituency MPs too) – they could well obtain the second preferences of voters who didn’t agree with them even though they would never get their cross under FPTP.

@21

“[AV] will inevitably result in coalitions and the prompt abandonment of some manifesto commitments.”

Or maybe, just maybe, it will stop parties like the Lib Dems making promises that they know they will not stick to if they get a sniff of power. Now there’s a thought.

“Furthermore, at an intuitive level, what I dislike about AV is that second, even third and fourth, preferences have the same weight as first preferences.”

Not sure that’s necessarily a significant problem, because we don’t know what people’s strength of feeling is behind their vote anyway. Two examples: a BNP supporter in a seat with no BNP candidate, who casts her first preference for UKIP, and a Tory supporter who casts a fourth preference for Labour (after Tory, UKIP, Lib Dem), because there’s a risk the BNP might take the seat. The latter may well care much more and have a much stronger preference between their fourth and fifth preferences than the former does between their first and second preferences, as they appear on a ballot.

“Certainly MPs who take strong positions can benefit our political life – but is that in itself a reason for supporting their election if most of the people they purport to represent don’t want them as their MP?”

I would say yes, but that’s because I think the local representative role is less important than the national representative role. I would rather have a right-wing Tory as my own MP, and someone else who closely represents my views in parliament (but sitting for another seat), than have a Blairite and a Cameroonian, neither of whom represent me very well. But I know others care a lot more about local representation.

@ 23:

“Or maybe, just maybe, it will stop parties like the Lib Dems making promises that they know they will not stick to if they get a sniff of power. Now there’s a thought.”

If you are right, that underscores the point made by the opponents of AV that it will lead to a soggier, blander, less interesting form of politics.

Tom @ 24: it’s not so much a practical problem with AV as a moral defect, imo.

@21

“Furthermore, at an intuitive level, what I dislike about AV is that second, even third and fourth, preferences have the same weight as first preferences.”

How many more times?

If your first preference – and your only preference under FPTP – gets nowhere, then that vote has no value at all. It’s wasted. You might just as well have stayed at home.

Under AV your second preference acquires value only if your first preference turns out to have no effect. And so on. AV means one person, one vote, one value.

The confusion comes partly from the use of the word “preference”. Think of it like this. Put 1 next to the name of the candidate who is your first choice. Then put 2 next to the name of the candidate who would be your second choice if your first choice couldn’t win, 3 next to your third choice, and so on.

Your choices could only have the same weight (in the sense in which you appear to mean it) if somehow they were all weighed at once. They aren’t.

@ 23 Mr S. Pill

“Or maybe, just maybe, it will stop parties like the Lib Dems making promises that they know they will not stick to if they get a sniff of power. Now there’s a thought.”

Ideally, in any election that seems to have a good chance of producing a coalition government (under whatever system), I’d like to see political parties set out one list of “preferable” policies that they would enact if they won outright (and would attempt to secure in a coalition), and another list of “core” policies that they refuse to enter a coalition without being fulfilled.

The Lib Dems would probably have benefited from doing this, because a lot of the promises they’re accused of breaking were obviously meant for an outright victory. And there would be democratic benefits – it would make it easier to decide your voting priorities, and make cases like the Lib Dems backing down on tuition fees (which they explicitly said would not happen even in a coalition, and can therefore be assumed to be a “core” policy) stand out from the less fair accusations of vow-breaking.

@25 Tom

Good point.

But (a) MPs with “distinctive” (for want of a better word) views can be personally popular, and it’s at least possible that AV would help rather than hinder their (re)election, and (b) doesn’t it rather undermine the whole notion of personal/local representation, at the very heart of British democracy (and I mean that last bit ironically, folks)?

As a Dutch friend once said to me, What’s the point in being represented according to where you live rather than what you believe?

Jonathan Phillips @ 27:

I should have written at 21:

“Furthermore, at an intuitive level, what I dislike about AV is that second, even third and fourth, preferences can have the same weight as first preferences.”

I know that not all preferences are weighed at once. But, in the final run-off, your second preference has the same weight as my first preference; and morally I find that counter-intuitive.

@ 26 paul

“If you are right, that underscores the point made by the opponents of AV that it will lead to a soggier, blander, less interesting form of politics.”

In other words, you’d prefer a more biased system that produces more interesting results. Following that logic, despotism would be great as long as the people were oppressed in really fascinating ways.

Look, the primary function of government is NOT meant to be your personal entertainment. Ideally, it should reflect the wishes of the people as much as is practical. AV is a step in this direction, and to oppose it just because you think FPTP makes better telly seems frankly irresponsible to me.

CG @ 28:

“Ideally, in any election that seems to have a good chance of producing a coalition government (under whatever system), I’d like to see political parties set out one list of “preferable” policies that they would enact if they won outright (and would attempt to secure in a coalition), and another list of “core” policies that they refuse to enter a coalition without being fulfilled.”

Is there anywhere were this happens? And if so, what are the consequences? It sounds to me like a recipe for ‘pluralist stagnation’ and long interregnums without a functioning government (as has occurred in Israel, Italy and Belgium in the past)

@28

That’s the general tendency in countries where coalition government is the norm (i.e. almost everywhere else in Europe). Parties tend to put forward aspirations, ideals, goals, rather than making specific commitments as to means. So you know the kind of things you are voting for, rather than policies set out in firm detail. Here parties set out lists of pledges (are the LDs more guilty than other parties of failing to stick to such pledges – given the peculiar circumstances?) – but most people vote on general impressions anyway.

@ 30 Paul

“But, in the final run-off, your second preference has the same weight as my first preference; and morally I find that counter-intuitive.”

But by dealing exclusively with the final run-off, you’ve artificially engineered the situation to fit that conclusion. You have deliberately ignored the rest of the process, and it’s the process overall that shows first preferences have considerably more weight than any others – if at least 50% of first prefs are for one candidate, other prefs don’t even need to be counted, for instance.

@30

“But, in the final run-off, your second preference has the same weight as my first preference; and morally I find that counter-intuitive.”

Would you rather your candidate lost?

As it is lots of MPs get in on tactical votes. My tactical vote for the Labour candidate (or whoever) is worth just as much as your principled vote for the same person. Why should it be any different if the tactical nature of my vote is brought out by the fact that I’ve voted Green 1, Labour 2? AV means greater transparency and allows me to show who I really support, FPTP just mixes my vote in with all the rest and allows the candidate to claim that I am just as strong a supporter as anyone else.

Its not exact because of their use of (disgraceful) ticket voting, but in Oz many people can vote Green, safe in the knowledge that the Greens will just give their vote to Labor. Hence the Greens get 10% of the vote (but not seats).

What gives the Greens real clout is their seats in the Upper House, where they are the balance of power. That is STV.

One of the reasons the Yes camp are struggling, is their tendency to assign AV features it does not have. This blog does the same. AV will give you the illusion of choice. The few who are genuinely informed about the system will be able to register their protest, safe in the knowledge that the main party will still get their vote. A protest with no teeth, is no protest. Choice that results in no choice is not choice.

AV is crap.

@ 32 paul

“Is there anywhere were this happens? And if so, what are the consequences?”

I don’t know. It just seems a lot more sensible than pretending that you can keep to the letter of a manifesto when you enter a coalition.

“It sounds to me like a recipe for ‘pluralist stagnation’ and long interregnums without a functioning government (as has occurred in Israel, Italy and Belgium in the past)”

Why? Sure, if everyone was dumb enough to put half their manifesto down as “core” policies, you’d end up with a situation where no two parties could deal without at least one of them breaking their promises. But the smart thing to do would be to only put one or two major policies on the “iron-clad guarantee” list.

@26

“If you are right, that underscores the point made by the opponents of AV that it will lead to a soggier, blander, less interesting form of politics.”

I’d rather than a truthful democracy than entertainment shaped by a faulty electoral system, but perhaps I’m just naive like that.

@ 36 astateofdenmark

“One of the reasons the Yes camp are struggling, is their tendency to assign AV features it does not have.”

True, but it’s got nowt on the No camp in this respect.

“The few who are genuinely informed about the system will be able to register their protest, safe in the knowledge that the main party will still get their vote. A protest with no teeth, is no protest.”

Complaining that a voting system is not a good enough form of protest is like complaining that your apple doesn’t taste of bananas. AV is a fairer system, and I see no reason that we should lose it because it doesn’t fulfill a role it’s not supposed to fill in the first place.

“Choice that results in no choice is not choice.”

So we should stick with the existing system that offers even less choice? Is that it?

It’s a bit hypocritical to complain that the Yes camp represents AV inaccurately, and then object to AV by raising issues that are the same or worse under FPTP. It also makes you look like you have ulterior motives.

CG @ 31: You caricature my position. I don’t prefer a system that only provides more interesting results but one that also provides more interesting debate and campaigns, and an interesting despotism would not provide interesting politics in that sense.

J S Mill argues that truths are more likely to emerge where there is thorough and open debate. The clash of ideological positions in debate invigorates a polity: consensual centrism leads to policy decisions being taken on the basis of unexamined arguments and evidence. (A good example of this was the 1975 referendum on our membership of the EEC (as it now isn’t), where arguably the Heath/Jenkins consensus was wrong, the Benn/Powell outsiders were right, and we are enmeshed in a not-always-benign, bureaucratic despotism.) Under AV, I think there will be less ideological debate, less scrutiny of the arguments and evidence for particular policies; nd I think that will be a bad thing.

AV will encourage candidates to move to the perceived centre. It will lead, I believe, to a bland populist centrism, in which those who ask the difficult questions are less likely to be elected and the resident heretics in the House of Commons will lose their seats. Moreover, I think that small parties — UKIP, Greens, even the LibDems — will be less likely to to take risks in policy formulation. Under AV, they will go for the safe not the radical option, and as a result some good ideas will be lost. Under FPTP, a role of the minority parties is to feed ideas into the wider political process, which means that Labour and Conservatives sometimes steal their ideas, but that’s politics.

Actually you’ve convinced me to vote for AV.

If AV will have the truly loony left parties drawing votes away from Labour, I’m all for it. It will lead to a broader coalition of Left wing parties in government, who will then do what every Left leaning government always does – fight like ferrtets in a sack whilst bankrupting the country.

Watchman @ 3 and Shatterface @ 4make the best point though; your reason for voting for AV is purely to try and keep people with views opposing your own out. Which is hardly democratic…..though it has to be said Fabianism itself is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.

“raising issues that are the same or worse under FPTP”

A ringing endorsement! Vote for change because it might not be as what we have now. But we can’t guarantee it. Worth a go though eh.

Even Yes supporters (bar a very small number) don’t want AV. They want STV, or one of the myriad proportional systems. It shows.

“It also makes you look like you have ulterior motives.”

What like my sign off in that post: “AV is crap”.

Yeh, really hiding my motives there.

Jonathon,

I’d like you to answer my points first, please. Then tell me how FPTP benefits the voter.

Very well.

- Does it help us to use our vote with greater precision and to have greater certainty as to its effect?

No. Because for that to happen you have to be able to predict how the rest of the electorate are going to vote. Indeed, if AV works as advertised to the benefit of minor parties, it is going to make voting less precise and less certain. So unless you want to admit AV actually entrenches the mainstream parties, this point is silly

- Does it eliminate the problem of the wasted vote?

Is there such a problem? If I believe in something enough to vote for it, why the hell is that a waste? Are you telling me that the committed Green who every election day gives me leaflets and a smile as I walk to my local station is actually wasting his vote helping to show that a small but significant section of my local electorate support the Green party and its objectives? I think you fail to distinguish the purpose of being allowed to cast a vote.

- Does it give more of us a say who represents us?

No – because now I can state my opinion about who I want to represent me absolutely. Under AV I could only express preferences (note the term used), which is a lot less absolute. It may give us more ability to decide who does not represent us, but if you want voting for political representatives to be done on the same system of logic as voting out contestants on reality TV (which does not produce perfect outcomes that often) then fine. Me, I prefer to have my opinion noted, not simply my preferences.

- Does it ensure that candidates who are strongly disliked by most of us can’t squeeze through on a minority vote?

Is this wrong? You are trying to claim it is right that a candidate that less people want (rather than prefer) is elected.

- Does it mean far more of us are represented by MPs in whose election we have at the very least acquiesced?

You do realise that by casting a vote you acquise in an election, regardless of the outcome. I think that you are very confused about preferance and choice myself.

Anyway, my simple questions in return.

- is it easy to work out who has won, and as such clear and transparent?

- does it allow people to effectively use their vote repeatedly, thus undermining the key democratic concept of ‘one (wo)man, one vote’?

- does it encourage the development of indistinguishable centrist clones all chasing the same 50.1% of the electorate and ensure the marginalisation of the remainder and their views?

- is it guaranteed not to lead to the entrenchment of a couple of major parties?

- is it based on a peculiar idea where levels of preference are given the same weighting, as if a grudging preferenance of Mr Smith over Ms Jones and Dr Evil for the 3rd preference counts the same as the vote for Mr Milliroon on the first preference and Little Miss Moffat on the second prefence?

- is it possible that the system could allow the winner of an election to be determined by which of two candidates supporters of the BNP, Respect and the Christian Alliance were less alienated by?

I’m sure you could answer those as easily (and as unconvincingly to me) as I did with your questions. Maybe you honestly believe preferences are better than actual decisions, and that democracy is a matter of who you dislike least. Seems odd to me though…

CG @ 37: There are plenty of dogmatic and dumb politicians…Think of the sway Israel’s minority religious parties hold over the democratic process. Arguably, if Israel used FPTP, there’d have been a settlement with Palestinians years ago…

More generally, I fail to see how a system that will magnify the presence of the LibDems, increase the number of coalition governments, not increase the representation of minority parties that significantly, and which will magnify the effects of landslides, is fairer than what we have at present.

I can’t say I fully followed Jones’ argument. First he says he opposes AV on grounds that it would mean that Labour would have to govern more often in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and this would rule out the possibility of it’s pursuing bold leftist policies. But then he acknowledges that governing in coalition with the Lib Dems has not prevented the Tories from prosecuting a radically rightwing agenda. Yet, if the second point is true (and it is) then why does he think coalition would prevent Labour, but not the Tories, from being radical?

“Many people who vote Labour might be sympathetic to the UKuncut cause but would still want to keep the Tories from further wrecking public services. It would make more sense to ignore UKuncut then and carry on voting Labour: no other party has a hope in hell of beating the Conservatives and stopping their agenda.”

Therefore really partisan Labour supporters and Conservative supporters will both vote against AV. From the point of view of the big parties, the existing system forces people who at least mildly dislike them to vote for them (or stay at home, which has pretty much the same effect). They actually rather like that.

I suspect this is a big part of why AV is failing at the polls – if you care more about your party winning than other people getting their opinions fairly represented, it makes sense for both Labour and Conservative supporters to vote against it.

“Ideally, it should reflect the wishes of the people as much as is practical.”

There are different ways of doing that, though. To take the fashion for colours in politics that seems to be around at the moment, if you have Red, Blue, Purple, Orange and Green and you want to put them together, you can make a bright and varied rainbow, or you can mix them all together to make a dull brown. Both reflect the mix of colours, but they do so in different ways, and I prefer the rainbow.

paulilc: “More generally, I fail to see how a system that will magnify the presence of the LibDems, increase the number of coalition governments,”

I suspect it might actually be extremely bad for the Lib Dems, although I don’t deny it might lead to more coalitions.

AV would end tactical voting. People only vote for the Lib Dems (certainly around here) because they are not the Tories, and Labour has no chance of winning.

I have no doubt the next election will be similar if AV doesn’t pass.

I’m staggered that some lefties are actually arguing FPTP is more plural and nice to smaller parties than AV. This is ridiculous.

In the example I gave above – if the hypothetical UKuncut party does start becoming very popular, and eventually bigger than Labour, then Labour votes get transferred to them rather than the other way around.

AV allows voters to express support for smaller parties without having to worry about whether it will let in the Tories for example. And it forces Labour to think about where support is growing (on the left perhaps) and pay attention to those voters.

I’ve updated the article to point this out.

I was very split in my views on the AV refferendum. In many ways I’m not too fussed about AV vs FPTP – I don’t think politics will be dramaticly difference under AV but I would concede that it is marginally better – but only a bit.

I really want a decent system of PR – so I am intending to vote in the refferendum with that long term strategic goal in mind. Until recently I was thinking that if the voting system changes, further reform will be off the cards for a generation so I’d rather the AV refferendum failed and then in 8 years or so there could be appetite for a refferendum on more radical reform. Seemed like a sound idea to me.

I’ve had my mind changed however by a professor at the local university who specialises in electoral systems. His view of the voting public is that they are small-c conservative, there is a tendancy in the UK to want only gradual change. In his view, a move to full-pr will be very difficult for the UK due to the voting culture and that whatever the result of the refferendum, further reform will be off the cards for a considerable time. Thus, if you want PR, the best thing to do is vote Yes and be the start of the gradual change that will be necessary.

“I’m staggered that some lefties are actually arguing FPTP is more plural and nice to smaller parties than AV. This is ridiculous.”

Neither is nice to small parties. But AV encourages the *main* parties to look towards the centre even more than plurality voting does.

@ 40. paul ilc

Fair enough – much better reasons. I disagree about the effect of AV on politics being a bad thing, though. One of the problems with our political system is that it’s currently in the opposition’s interests to oppose or criticise almost anything the government does – even if it’s actually a good idea. Parties demand policies that they know are stupid, and that they’d never bring in if they were in power, simply because it’s possible to misphrase them in a populist fashion. If AV led to more coalitions, I suspect pragmatism would see this happen less, which would mean more honest politics.

That’s a side note, though: I mainly want AV because it might help rid us of the undemocratic two-party hold on Westminster.

@ 42 astateofdenmark

“A ringing endorsement! Vote for change because it might not be as what we have now. But we can’t guarantee it. Worth a go though eh.”

More like a burning straw man. AV had advantages in terms of fairness, and the disadvantages you raise are also disadvantages under the current system. I don’t believe anyone’s campaigning for AV on the basis that it’s functionally identical to FPTP, because it quite obviously isn’t.

“Even Yes supporters (bar a very small number) don’t want AV. They want STV, or one of the myriad proportional systems. It shows.”

They want AV rather than FPTP, though. I know it suits you to pretend that the current debate is about whether AV is the best possible system, but it’s not – it’s about AV vs FPTP, due to the terms of the referendum. So comparing AV to STV or PR is irrelevant in this context.

“What like my sign off in that post: “AV is crap”.

Yeh, really hiding my motives there.”

Sigh… obviously you’re anti-AV. But you’re pretending to be against it because of its flaws – this is obviously a pretence as the flaws you’ve mentioned are equal or worse under FPTP!

It therefore appears (and your attempt to misrepresent the Yes position above supports this) that you have other motives to oppose AV, ones that lead you to make dishonest arguments against it. Vote Tory or Labour, by any chance?

“Labour usually campaigns (under FPTP) by trying to drive up turnout amongst groups more likely to support Labour but less likely to vote …”

Recent experience would suggest that this is entirely untrue. Labour (and the Tories) campaign in major elections for the 200,000 floating votes (or whatever) in the crucial marginals. The entire election becomes a fight over this narrow ground, that happens to be occupied by Mr Little Man and his rugged individualist Daily Mail views.

An advantage of AV would be to destroy this and widen the scope of the election – something we desperately need.

AStateofDenmark

“AV is crap”

But FPTP is immeasurably worse.

@ 51 Tom

“Neither is nice to small parties. But AV encourages the *main* parties to look towards the centre even more than plurality voting does.”

Even if this turns out to be true, so what? Just vote for a less centrist party – under AV, you won’t be wasting your vote even if that party is small.

Choosing an electoral system should not be about trying to force the leading parties into your preferred political position. It should be about making sure people can support whichever party best reflects their views.

Chaise,

Choosing an electoral system should not be about trying to force the leading parties into your preferred political position. It should be about making sure people can support whichever party best reflects their views.

All democracies allow this by definition, whatever the system.

CG @ 52:

“One of the problems with our political system is that it’s currently in the opposition’s interests to oppose or criticise almost anything the government does – even if it’s actually a good idea”

But even good ideas must be tested-to-destruction or we will never know whether they are good ideas, will we? Without adversarial politics, without vigorous debate, ideas do not get a thorough evaluation, and consensus and group-think lead to lazy thinking – with all the dangers that involves.

“I mainly want AV because it might help rid us of the undemocratic two-party hold on Westminster.” But that is happening, and will happen, without AV, as the core votes of the two main parties shrink. That’s why we have one Green MP, for example…

Neither is nice to small parties. But AV encourages the *main* parties to look towards the centre even more than plurality voting does.

No, this is just wrong. I could write a looong explanation as to why, but my UKuncut example above already does so in brief.

@ 57 Watchman

“All democracies allow this by definition, whatever the system.”

You know what I mean – AV means you can vote for your favoured party without worrying that you might let your least favourite party in by doing so.

“No, this is just wrong. I could write a looong explanation as to why, but my UKuncut example above already does so in brief.”

Not really. It doesn’t give any explanation as to why UKUncut would benefit while they were a small party. Your counterargument was that it increases their chances of becoming a big party – this is tenuous for starters (the same logic should apply to fringe parties of the Right, but Yes are very defensive on that point) and in any case, then means they benefit from being a big party, not a small party per se.

In any even, what happens then? When UKUncut are getting 20% of the vote and Centre-Labour are getting 18%, in your scenario. What is UKUncut’s strategic incentive under AV if it wants to secure those transfers from Labour, and also from Orange Book Liberals, to get over 50%? Is it to stay on the left, or is it to move gradually into the centre to occupy the position of the party it has displaced?

@ 58 Paul

“But even good ideas must be tested-to-destruction or we will never know whether they are good ideas, will we? Without adversarial politics, without vigorous debate, ideas do not get a thorough evaluation, and consensus and group-think lead to lazy thinking – with all the dangers that involves. ”

But knee-jerk aggressive politics encourages politicians to lie to the public and spend their time making character assassinations and pretending to support positions they know are bad. So policies aren’t tested to see if they’re good – they’re tested to see if they can stand up to the opposition making cheap attacks on them that sound good in the tabloids. AV doesn’t fix this, but I suspect it improves it.

“But that is happening, and will happen, without AV, as the core votes of the two main parties shrink. That’s why we have one Green MP, for example…”

Seriously? A tiny handful of MPs that aren’t in the top three parties and you think that nothing more needs to be done? Even the Lib Dems get far fewer MPs per vote than Labour or the Tories.

It’s impressive that Caroline Lucas got in despite the absolutely HUGE bias against parties like hers. The fact that she achieved this does not mean that bias should not be addressed.

CG @ 62:

I’m not defending “knee-jerk” aggressive politics; I’m arguing for adversarial politics. If ideas cannot survive some tabloid knockabout, then they are probably not very robust. And there are plenty of other forums apart from Parliament and the tabloids where democratic debate can ensure that ideas are examined and evaluated thoroughly – from the local pub, to Any Questions or Question Time.

“AV doesn’t fix this, but I suspect it improves it.” Well, forgive me if I’m sceptical. One thing that particularly puts me off AV is its relatively untested nature (given that only a handful of democracies use it) and our ignorance of the effect it will have on our political culture.

I didn’t say nothing else needed to be done; but the Conservative and Labour monoliths are undoubtedly fragmenting, and under FPTP we have some 28(?) out of 650 MPs from minority parties.

But isn’t there a difference between giving ideas proper scrutiny and testing them rationally, and the kind of adversarial politics where this doesn’t happen, and instead politicians stick to rigid positions based upon what they think the polls want. Adversarial politics just leads to the culture war politics of the United States.

“One thing that particularly puts me off AV is its relatively untested nature ”

The thing is, some people may well vote for AV precisely because of this. Given the lack of enthusiasm for AV amongst advocates of electoral reform, ‘mixing things up a bit’ is actually the best argument. If you think the UK’s politics are broken, then I suspect you’ll vote for AV, and if you think it works well, you’ll stick with FPTP.

Yes, and first past the post worked out so well for the left under Blair.

sally,

Was that an endorsement or not? Because I can’t see how AV would work much better for the left – but then again, I think Sunny’s argument is wrong, you may not.

Planeshift @ 64

But even when the politicians stick remorselessly to their fixed positions, the quality press, radio and tv interviewers, commentators, bloggers, letter writers, ordinary people in discussions and so on ad on are exploring and testing the politician’s arguments in adversarial ways. If you don’t have that, you don’t have a healthy democratic polity. So adversarial politics does not “just” lead to “the culture war politics of the United States”.

“The thing is, some people may well vote for AV precisely because of this.” To vote for change when you do not have sufficient evidence of the effects of the change is as irrational as it is naive.

Jeez. What a load of balls! Instead of making a really, really, really weak argument in favour of such a poor system as AV, why not boycott this ‘referendum of no choice’ and demand a referendum on full PR.

When the only logical, democratic change would be to have full PR, why are you getting worked up about AV? Much like with FPTP, we just end up with the same old politicians, from the same old party’s.

The effect of the AV system on the ability of a minor Party to break through has also been tested where in 2010 despite huge support Australia elected its first Green MP ( in fact you can track their exclusion against the importance of second prefs ). In Britain the Greens Poll about 1% and got a seat . In Oz they have sufficient popular support to get 9 out of 76 Upper House seats elected by PR / STV
In Oz the ALP has harvested Green voters by adopting Green Policies so they do have an effect but only as a pressure group. This lack of accountability may be viewed as a good thing by the sort of people who turn out at UK Un Cut doo dahs and it may be true that it would allow micro extremist groups to grow and influence the Main Parties. The dissipation of their vote, however, will stop them actually breaking through .
In the UK its chief effect will be to make Lib Lab coalition the likely future government and mainstream voters who may not vote will indeed be less important as they will have no second preference and real votes must trump possible numbers .
What you will have the is a more faddy more international pro immigration pro Europe touchy feely sort of Labour Party relatively anti Union relatively unconvinced by collectivist ideas and relatively immune to the voter as a deal with the centre Party will always be an option real or imagined , usually in coalition if in power
Many people would like that sort of Labour Party and if you do then I suggest you vote for AV

Not really. It doesn’t give any explanation as to why UKUncut would benefit while they were a small party.

UKuncut would benefit because people sympathetic to them can still vote for them without worrying that it will become a spoiler vote and let in the Tories.

So that allows the electorate to indicate the true level of support for them. If UKuncut party becomes more popular, then Labour will have to start listening.

Under FPTP, they simply won’t get more than a hardcore bunch of voters, since most voters will be too afraid voting for parties other than Labour would let the Tories in. Geddit?

I think we should make UK Uncut a political party.

@71

Because there are not enough far-left parties already..?

Here’s some Australian academic evidence, which supports the contention that AV is centrist.

http://theoldpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/04/alternative-vote-and-centre-ground.html

“If UKuncut party becomes more popular, then Labour will have to start listening.”

No, they won’t – at least not under AV. All Labour needs is to be able to rely on the people voting for UKUncut to preference Labour higher than the other realistic candidates for the seat.

Now, you might say that voters for UKUncut might not transfer their preferences at all if they’re sufficiently disappointed in the Labour party being just a cigarette-paper away from the other big parties, and that’s certainly possible – but in that case, we return to the situation of a vote for UKUncut being a spoiler vote that might let in other parties, as under FPTP.

74/Tom: we return to the situation of a vote for UKUncut being a spoiler vote that might let in other parties, as under FPTP.

Well, not really. If under AV they vote UKUncut 1, and don’t preference Labour, then the chances are that in an FPTP election without UKUncut those voters still wouldn’t have voted Labour (either vote for another minor left party, or just don’t show up). It’s not those voters that make UKUncut a potential spoiler vote.

Regarding the original post:
I think the problem with this argument is that there are two competing effects. On the one hand, the ability of minor parties to draw votes away from major parties and make them lose is reduced under AV, as is the power to not stand a candidate to help someone else win.

On the other hand, the lack of votes for minor parties being wasted or spoiler votes could encourage people to vote for them, which might help those minor parties get to a major-party vote level in carefully-targeted constituencies. Indeed, UKIP in safe Conservative seats (where the Conservatives get 50%+ under FPTP), or the Greens in some safe Labour or Lib Dem seats, might be able to take advantage of this.

Another thing to note is that transfers are not perfect: polling suggests – and this fits with my own experience of AV elections – that around a sixth of voters won’t put more than one preference, and another third won’t put more than three. This means there’s still a potential spoiler effect in part – it’s better not to lose a vote to a minor party even if you think you might get it back. (Especially in a three-way marginal where you really don’t want to end up third of the three locally major parties)

I’m really not sure which effect will be more applicable – I suspect in the short-term the “lack of spoiler” effect would be dominant, but in the long-term as the political landscape and campaigning adjusts, and as people got more familiar with AV, the ability to get safely into contention to win without going through a “spoiler” stage first would start to come through.

S.Pill,

Because there are not enough far-left parties already..?

Surely you can never have too many far-left parties. At least, that is the only logical explanation of the history of far-left parties…

I think we should perhaps bear in mind that AV doesn’t actually stop tactical voting, it just allows people to vote tactically as well as casting a protest vote.

Take the UKUncut-Labour-Tory example. If I’m a UKUncut supporter, I can vote for that party as my first preference and Labour as my second without worrying about splitting the Labour vote. But the thing is — if I put Labour as my second choice because I think they’d be better than the Tories (though worse than UKUncut), that’s still tactical voting. About the only difference with FPTP is that, under FPTP, I’d have to vote for Labour instead of UKUncut instead of as well as them.

Furthermore, if I cast a first preference for UKUncut and they don’t get in, surely that’s just as much a wasted vote as if I’d done so under FPTP? If I wanted to avoid wasting my vote, I’d also have to vote for Labour, who might have a chance of getting in. This is pretty similar to what I’d have to do under FPTP, and again looks to me quite like tactical voting.

XXX/77: That depends on your definition of tactical voting. The usual definition is “A vote which is not your actual preference(s) that would give a better result than a vote which was your actual preferences” – in that respect, that’s not a tactical vote, it’s a honest AV vote. The second/third/etc. preference might have been one’s tactical vote had it been an FPTP election, but that doesn’t mean that preference is tactical in an AV election.

I don’t know of any useful definition of “wasted vote”. The general definition seems to be colloquially “a vote which did not contribute towards the final result” but that gives very odd results if you try to be precise about it, and there’s plenty of room to argue about what it means even if you don’t. At any rate, certainly an AV vote of UU->Lab->something is unlikely, most of the time, to be different to an AV vote of Lab->something when it comes to the effect on the final result – but at least the advantage of AV is that you don’t have to know in advance whether it’s likely, unlikely, or impossible on this particular occasion.