Another reason to vote AV
As you may be aware, there is a referendum approaching in the UK to determine whether or not to switch from a “first past the post” voting system to an “alternative vote” (AV) voting system.
Here at the Big Bad Blog, we have previously voiced our arguments for why an AV system is preferable to the current model, and have yet to hear a convincing argument to the contrary. Indeed, we have yet to hear a single point that was not addressed in our original post.
Still, we understand why some people might still be on the fence, and would like to convince you — if you are such a person — that AV is the way to go. Rather than make further arguments for AV, however, we instead have elected to show you this actual real official video from the people behind the NO to AV campaign:
Believe it or not, this is NOT a parody. It is actually from the NO to AV people.
If the UK voting public is as stupid as the NO to AV people think it is, then they are probably right. There’s no helping us, anyway.
If, however, you disagree with this portrait of the average British voter, then you should vote for AV: we can probably handle it.
Image found at Political Scrapbook.
It has “alternative” right there in the name. Ergo, it must be about anti-establishment powers getting elected, wearing flannel and smoking weed. We CAN’T HAVE THAT.
I like how the LibDeb horsey and jockey were disappointed to have won the race even though they came in third.
Hmm, not too sure if voting YES in reaction to a shoddy NO advert is a good enough reason to make me swing my vote – it’s about as helpful as voting NO because Clegg and Ed Miliband are supporting YES.
I’ve thought about the issue long and hard but the more I think about it the more I am supporting NO.
I agree that the No2AV campaign has been shoddy, tabloidesque, and misleading in many cases, and I don’t associate myself with it. But speaking as someone who is agnostic on PR, but feels the country should have an opportunity to decide on it, I have over the past few weeks become increasingly convinced that AV will make PR less, not more likely. And let’s face it – the only reason most pro-AVers (not yourself, of course) support AV is that they see AV as 1) less bad than FPTP and 2) closer to PR on a two-dimensional spectrum of voting systems.
I find this reasoning flawed; I don’t believe such a spectrum can exist, but even if it did, I would put FPTP somewhere in between AV and PR. Yes, I consider FPTP the lesser evil in this sense. One country where AV is used, Australia, has had AV for about 70 years, and it is no closer to adopting PR. Indeed, a poll carried out in October last year indicated an absolute majority of Australians want to return to FPTP.
AV reinforces two-party politics, so that even if the Lib Dems weren’t hugely unpopular right now I think over time they would die out under AV. Australia is, again, testament: the AV House of Representatives is a two-party chamber with only 6 non-Labor/Alliance members, while the STV Senate is a polyglot chamber where no party has a majority.
(The Alliance is ostensibly a coalition of the Nationals and the Liberals, but they have been so tightly bound together for the past few decades they are essentially one party. In some Australian States and Territories they have even merged.)
Moreover AV doesn’t do jot to remove strategic voting – it will simply be moved to second, third, fourth and fifth preferences. You might be able to feel slightly better about your no-hoper getting your straight vote, but it’s your second preferences down that matter here, and where strategic voting is displaced. Worse, while STV recognizes non-first preferences are of lesser value than first preferences and so counts them accordingly, AV does not, and so disproportionality is rife.
AV isn’t complex, I agree with you there. However AV is just as, if it more, vulnerable to gaming. Australian parties issue official guides on how to rank preferences to benefit them the most. The system practically invites gaming. Whether this is a bad thing or not is a matter of preference and I don’t see it as one, but I don’t think it’s right to throw stones in glass houses.
It’s also a bit of a leap, I think, to assume a candidate that wins an AV election is the one with the broadest spectrum of representation. In Australia, this is not the case, and elections are just as polarized and intense as ever. There have also been examples of the distant runner-up (as in, 25% of first preferences) ends up beating the first-preference winner (as in, 46% of first preferences) on sixth-vote redistributions. I consider that atrociously unfair. I’d prefer a candidate who won on a substantial plurality than someone who squeaks through on recounts, especially as at that point I doubt many people would seriously consider their sixth-preference their choice!
AV might give the impression of providing more broadly supported MPs on a constituency basis (which I am unconvinced by anyway), but nationally it does the exact opposite. It is without a doubt less proportional than FPTP. I don’t think many Greens, Liberals or other small parties would feel particularly enfranchised that their votes helped to elect Labour or Tory governments with absolute majorities even larger than FPTP’s badder days.
Moreover, any system which such people as Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, Lord Owen, and Professor Vernon Bogdanor, all three experts in the field of electoral reform and passionate advocates of PR, decry as the worst of all possible choices will not get my vote.
No to AV; maybe to PR.
Two issues with your points:
First, if any voting system is meant to be a “cure” for two-party politics, you’re doing it wrong. FPTP systems create coalition governments all across Europe. AV creates what is essentially a two-party system in Australia.
The amusing thing, of course, is that your English speaking large economies (UK, US, Canada, Australia) all have two-party systems, whereas non-English speaking countries and those with weak economies have a tendency to have more viable third (and fourth and fifth) parties, and regularly form coalitions.
It does not appear to be the voting system, but some other set of social and economic indicators which is the genesis of two-party politics.
Whether AV encourages or discourages two-party politics is academic — Australia, as a single data point, is anecdotal. I could offer the United States as a FPTP system, and they are about as two-party as you can get in a free society — there is no semi-viable third party who could conceivably upset the Democrat/Republican balance there.
It is amusing that the “No to AV” side lists “constant coalitions” amongst the problems with the system, however.
I’m pretty sure that the actual long-term effect — few coalitions, or many — will have little to do with the voting system used, and much to do with the future socio-economic landscape.
Second, politics is all about gaming.
Is that gaming pointing out that a party on the left/right does not receive many votes, so there is no point in voting for them?
Is that gaming gerrymandering to create “safe” seats?
Is that gaming giving advice to supporters on how to fill out their ballots?
I find it hard to see this last sort of gaming as a very bad thing. Particularly when contrasted with other types of election shenanigans that take place.
In particular, I have to wonder if AV might lead to fewer attack ads. Attack ads are predicated on convincing the supporters of the other party not to participate.
But if those supporters will just list a different left/right-wing party as their first choice, and still list Labour/Conservative further down the ballot, can attack ads still be as effective? And if not, does that turn us to a sort of politics where parties try to appeal to the supporters of other parties, rather than attempt to curb their enthusiasm and participation in the political process?
I don’t know, of course. If I could see the future, I’d be a much more successful lottery player.
As for proportionality, votes in the 2010 election:
Right-wing votes (Conservative, UKIP, BNP, etc — traditionalist, socially conservative, economically liberal) = 12.6 million
Left-wing votes (Labour, Lib Dem, Green, etc. — progressive, socially liberal, environmentalist, socialist) = 16.8 million
Other votes (have trouble classifying based on my knowledge and wikipedia, or they very much straddle the definitions) = 131,192
Under what reasonably proportional system does this make a Conservative-led government a good representative of the voters’ political leanings? Add all the “others” to the right-wing total and claim I made a 10% error in favour of the left (and none in favour of the right) and they still have the majority of votes. It’s not close.
The only thing I am certain of is that, in 2010, the majority of voters rejected a Conservative platform for one that was socialist, progressive, and/or environmentalist. That was not the government they received.
I haven’t got time yet to respond to the whole thing Steve
although to assume that Lib Dems + Labour = left wing is disingenuous, particularly as the 10% that still support the Lib Dems and still, presumably, support the coalition, when combined with the Conservatives, still outnumber Labour’s support. This can go round all day: the British electorate rejected the Conservatives by a slightly smaller margin than they rejected Labour’s. Lib Dems generally dislike being associated with either.
If we had AV/PR, and somehow another coalition comes about, and that coalition was again Con/Lib, what would be your solution? Should they be constitutionally banned from forming a government, because they are somehow politically incompatible to you?
You get me wrong.
I’m OK with both FPTP and coalitions – including the one we have now.
I think having a referendum on AV is a waste of money.
I think FPTP and AV are both fair and reasonable ways to elect a government, and the differences are mostly semantic.
I think we would still have a Conservative government propped up by the Lib Dems if the last election had been AV — the difference being that the Lib Dems would have more seats and more clout. The results would probably be even more marked than noted in this analysis from the LSE, as progressives who were unhappy with Labour but worried about a Tory government would be more likely to vote for their local Lib Dem, knowing that they could list Labour at #2.
That election was less about voting in the Tories than it was voting out Labour — I would like to think that such a result would be more readily apparent under AV, though perhaps the system would instead have handed Labour another government, or the Tories a majority.
I’m pretty happy we have a Conservative-led coalition, as I think a left-wing party would not have the collective political will to go ahead with cuts during a recession (which I think would be bad news, long term), but don’t generally agree with right-wing politics and wish the Lib Dems were doing a better job at extracting compromises.
But there is a referendum. It’s happening whether I like it or not, and — having compared the two side-by-side — I think AV is better than FPTP.
First Past the Post crowns the individual (or party) who garner the most votes.
AV crowns the individual (or party) which sits at the most popular point in the political spectrum amongst voters.
I feel that the latter is a better result than the former, in terms of providing voters the government that they seek. I respect that others might disagree.
One side-note:
Con/Lib Dem combined support is at 46%, compared to Labour at 42% (source).
Assuming that the numbers are +/- 2% (or more) (which seems like a safe assumption), that is not outnumbering but a dead heat. The errors overlap, so no conclusion can be drawn regarding whether the government or opposition has more support, at present.