In the first series of Auf Wiedersehen, Pet, the boys decide that they need to brighten up their hut. They agree to paint it, but can't decide on a colour. Ever resourceful, Barry persuades his fellow inmates to vote for their favourite colours using a system that elected the Secretary of the West Bromwich and District Table Tennis Association. The lads rank their preferred colours, after which Barry announces that the winner is yellow. One by one, all of the other six characters complain that they didn't choose yellow. Barry, showing a good deal of incredulity, explains that this was democracy in action. As no two people agreed on their first choice colour, second and third preferences were taken into account. And the winner was yellow.
Welcome to the world of the Alternative Vote. Most 'Proportional' systems around the world claim that they make elections fairer, that they ensure everyone's vote counts and produce a result that reflects voters true feelings. But is that true? No, of course it isn't. Just like the system which decided to paint the hut yellow, AV and other proportional methods are just as likely to produce something that nobody wants.
At this point, it's almost obligatory to argue that "of course First Past The Post isn't perfect...." but I'm not going to. I happen to think that FPTP is the best system we could have. Think about what happens in our elections. Several people stand for a certain area and we get to choose one of them. What could be simpler? Every now and again, it provides an uncertain result. It did in 2010. It did in 1974. It did in 1924. When was the last time a country operating a PR system had an uncertain result? The last time. And the time before that. And the time before that. And every time there has been an election since PR was adopted.
We are told by those who like PR that our voting system suits our existing political parties. This is true, but not in the way they mean. Britain's mainstream political parties are often described as 'broad churches', as opposed to narrow, sectionalised interests. If you vote Labour, be proud that you are voting for an organisation that can encompass Tony Blair and Tony Benn. Similarly, the Conservative Party can find a home not just for Kenneth Clarke, but also Norman Tebbit. The LibDems have Nick Clegg. And they are welcome to him. But the point is that our coalitions are made BEFORE elections take place, so people know what they are getting. Most countries which operate PR make their coalitions AFTER people have had their say, making a satisfactory outcome far more difficult to obtain.
The days of horse trading after the 2010 General Election were pretty unpleasant to watch (partly because Danny Alexander and William Hague were involved, I grant you). Promises were ditched and compromises were conceded. I know this happened under FPTP, but it is a rarity. It will happen every time under PR. What a great advert for democracy. "Vote for us and we'll give you.....erm....something.....anything we can agree on.....just give us your vote and trust us......"
There is a touch of the chicken and egg about the current status quo. I don't know whether the electoral system has evolved to suit the parties, or vice-versa. But it has happened. Most parties spend their time in opposition debating, modernising and evolving their positions to take account of what people want. In countries with PR, there is no impetus for change. After all, a coalition could collapse at any time, and your small party could be called upon to fill the breach at any moment. This happened during Silvio Berlusconi's first term in office, with the result that the more than slightly nutty Northern League were brought into government to sustain him. (Anyone hailing from the same part of the world as me would be forgiven for imagining Billingham Synthonia propping up a government, but I digress....). It is a seriously flawed system that gives tiny parties, with support from fewer than one in ten people, such a great say in who forms a government. A disproportional outcome from a supposedly proportional system.
Of course it's not just the theory, but the practicalities too. Think about how any PR system could play out in this country. Would we really be happy to see the BNP dictating policy to a future Prime Minister reliant on their handful of M.P.'s? Would we really be happy to see those handful of M.P.'s elected in the first place? Would it ever happen? It did in the 2009 Euro elections. I lived in the North West at the time and had the great displeasure of seeing the odious Nick Griffin represent me in Brussels and Strasbourg. Nice.
Don't kid yourself that it couldn't happen. It could, it has and it will. A vote for AV is a vote for political instability, fractionalisation and the break up of the very bodies which are able to make decisions and be accountable. You may not like them, but the hellish alternative is just too gruesome to contemplate.
Welcome to the world of the Alternative Vote. Most 'Proportional' systems around the world claim that they make elections fairer, that they ensure everyone's vote counts and produce a result that reflects voters true feelings. But is that true? No, of course it isn't. Just like the system which decided to paint the hut yellow, AV and other proportional methods are just as likely to produce something that nobody wants.
At this point, it's almost obligatory to argue that "of course First Past The Post isn't perfect...." but I'm not going to. I happen to think that FPTP is the best system we could have. Think about what happens in our elections. Several people stand for a certain area and we get to choose one of them. What could be simpler? Every now and again, it provides an uncertain result. It did in 2010. It did in 1974. It did in 1924. When was the last time a country operating a PR system had an uncertain result? The last time. And the time before that. And the time before that. And every time there has been an election since PR was adopted.
We are told by those who like PR that our voting system suits our existing political parties. This is true, but not in the way they mean. Britain's mainstream political parties are often described as 'broad churches', as opposed to narrow, sectionalised interests. If you vote Labour, be proud that you are voting for an organisation that can encompass Tony Blair and Tony Benn. Similarly, the Conservative Party can find a home not just for Kenneth Clarke, but also Norman Tebbit. The LibDems have Nick Clegg. And they are welcome to him. But the point is that our coalitions are made BEFORE elections take place, so people know what they are getting. Most countries which operate PR make their coalitions AFTER people have had their say, making a satisfactory outcome far more difficult to obtain.
The days of horse trading after the 2010 General Election were pretty unpleasant to watch (partly because Danny Alexander and William Hague were involved, I grant you). Promises were ditched and compromises were conceded. I know this happened under FPTP, but it is a rarity. It will happen every time under PR. What a great advert for democracy. "Vote for us and we'll give you.....erm....something.....anything we can agree on.....just give us your vote and trust us......"
There is a touch of the chicken and egg about the current status quo. I don't know whether the electoral system has evolved to suit the parties, or vice-versa. But it has happened. Most parties spend their time in opposition debating, modernising and evolving their positions to take account of what people want. In countries with PR, there is no impetus for change. After all, a coalition could collapse at any time, and your small party could be called upon to fill the breach at any moment. This happened during Silvio Berlusconi's first term in office, with the result that the more than slightly nutty Northern League were brought into government to sustain him. (Anyone hailing from the same part of the world as me would be forgiven for imagining Billingham Synthonia propping up a government, but I digress....). It is a seriously flawed system that gives tiny parties, with support from fewer than one in ten people, such a great say in who forms a government. A disproportional outcome from a supposedly proportional system.
Of course it's not just the theory, but the practicalities too. Think about how any PR system could play out in this country. Would we really be happy to see the BNP dictating policy to a future Prime Minister reliant on their handful of M.P.'s? Would we really be happy to see those handful of M.P.'s elected in the first place? Would it ever happen? It did in the 2009 Euro elections. I lived in the North West at the time and had the great displeasure of seeing the odious Nick Griffin represent me in Brussels and Strasbourg. Nice.
Don't kid yourself that it couldn't happen. It could, it has and it will. A vote for AV is a vote for political instability, fractionalisation and the break up of the very bodies which are able to make decisions and be accountable. You may not like them, but the hellish alternative is just too gruesome to contemplate.
You are, of course, aware that Mr Milliband MP has come out in favour of AV?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2011/mar/30/ed-miliband-alternative-vote-av
I'm with you to be honest. As an aside the cynical amongst us may wonder if Labour know that the Lib-Dems will never partner up with the Tories again, thus Labour will 'win' every election from here to the end of eternity...
Although I do agree that AV is a little more complicated to administer - the analogy of the painting of a shed is spurious. The paint analogy fails due to the fact the the voting pool is too low. If you take the example of 4 choices of paint then rankings for any particular paint could be in any of 16 rankings (4 x 4 positions). So you need at least 16 voters.
ReplyDeleteNow in theory the yellow paint would get ranked 1st 4 times out of 16 combinations (25%). However, the outcome to perfectly match you choice then 1 out of 16 (6.25%) - but that isn't the aim - it's to choose a winner!
The value to plitics of AV is that in the first round you may not be the clear winner (50%) so candidates do have to look very closely at the policies they are promoting and this could me they tailor their hustings towards a more local than national focus (local issues). In addition, if it is more likely than a coalition is formed then pliticians and parties will need to take into account more of the voters interest than pure party lines and 'party politics' (ideology).
There is the obvious flaw in that you could get parties chasing the center ground - but New Labour has done that already. With that example you could argue that the voting system is catching up with politics!!
One other downside is that you could end up with parties courting right-wing voters just to soak up that voting pool. However, I'm pretty confident that minor fringe parties will get knocked out in early rounds of AV.
I am liking AV more than FPTP as it upsets the mindset of 'safe seats' that have been used and abused by parties for decades - see recent election examples of parachuted candidates at the expense of local candidates = Tristram Hunt for Stoke.
Thanks for the comments, guys! Mark, I am aware that Ed Milliband is in favour of AV - Tony Blair was in favour of invading Iraq, so I have a track record of disagreeing with Labour leaders!
ReplyDeleteBen, I feel you are being over-optimistic. I'd like to see MORE ideology, not less. I want to see political parties stating what they believe in, not just saying things to get elected, then going back on their promises because they are the junior part of a coalition. If only I could think of a recent example of that.....
The Tristram Hunt example is not the best one to choose, as Hunt had to go through a selection procedure (I know a little about this, as I was once Secretary of that very constituency party!). The 'local candidate' lost, fair and square - and had a history of moaning whenever he lost anything! It's a bit of an insult to the party members in Stoke Central to suggest that they could be ridden roughshod over - God knows, I tried to do it and failed! AV will not alter the selection of candidates.
As far as the yellow paint example is concerned, I stand by my point. Rather than giving a government that, say, 43% of people voted for (ie Thatcher/Blair), PR systems give a Government that nobody voted for. You cannot simply add 36% of Tories to 17% Libdems and get a 53% Government. I would suggest that most LibDem voters would not want to be in coalition with the Tories, but there is only one way to find that out. By having an election. Where people say who they will be in partnership with before the votes are cast.
PR will never do this. The only way to benefit from PR is to buy shares in smoke filled rooms and to copyright clichés about dodgy deals.
With AV surely the aim is to have a system reflect the politics of democracy rather than 'winnner takes all'? The previous elections have been fought either as an ideological struggle (which was good for the times) and then a marketing exercise (conning in other terms).
ReplyDeleteYou say you can't add "36% of Tories to 17% Libdems and get a 53% Government" but at a local level AV would get a candidate that reflects the political 'leaning' of the local citizens. If this means a coalition is all but gauranteed at the end just reflects the reality that there are bigger problems such as a North South divide or Private vs Public sector dominance in an area.
Policies over politics (of Us vs Them) is always preferable as with any party political system you get the upheaval of going from one ideology to another.
Surely getting rid of 'safe seats' is preferable? FPTP is usually fought over some selected contensted / tight marginal seats - how democratic is that?
Politics will adjust to AV - Ideology promotes 'Us vs Them' artificial divisions - how many times do we hear that politicians vote on party lines? Perhaps this may trigger more referendums and whip free voting in the commons?
You won't be surprised that I disagree, Ben!
ReplyDeleteAV won't mean that succesful candidates have universal support, or anything like it. We will get the 'least worst' option. Before the last election this would have been the LibDems, but is now more likely to be the Greens. People will not study every manifesto - they rarely look at even one - so second, third, fourth preferences will be made on judgements such has who looks nicest on TV, or who is least offensive as a 'brand'. Precisely the sort of thing you say you want to get away from.
Ideology does not promote 'us and them' - I would rather have someone to either support or object to on points of principle rather than whether or not they have a nice haircut.
I want to see people who are committed and who have ideas, not just people who say "vote for me and I'll do whatever you ask me to". If that's the future of politics, we may as well do away with elections, take it in turns to be a delegate and all vote on every individual issue.
AV will reward those who are not good enough to win. Welcome to Government by the mediocre.
So, is Ed Miliband evidence of mediocre? I would have to agree then!
ReplyDeleteI should , of course, point out that Ed Miliband is not currently in Government. Nick Clegg, who you voted for, Ben, is!
ReplyDelete