There are many out there who like me, would ideally like to see the UK adopt an electoral system based on proportional representation, as have many European countries, such as Germany, Switzerland and Sweden, perhaps using a voting system such as the Single Transferable Vote. That’s great. Alas, we have a problem. Many of these people believe that we have been short-changed by being offered AV instead, which isn’t proportional and is merely a slight improvement on the current system. Because of this some people feel insulted by
the offer of the Alternative Vote and feel the best way to respond is by saying, “No thank you, come back with a real offer of change! We won’t sell out so easily!”
the offer of the Alternative Vote and feel the best way to respond is by saying, “No thank you, come back with a real offer of change! We won’t sell out so easily!”
Unfortunately this is exactly the way the No campaign wants us to think. By No campaign, of course I mean the people who want to keep First Past the Post, and not change at all. These are the people who stand to lose from fairer votes and would be even less happy with a proportional system than they would with the Alternative Vote that is currently on offer. They are pretending to be sympathetic towards those who want a more significant change and saying that they will support electoral reform if we help them defeat the Alternative Vote proposal. They want you to think that changing to AV will leave us stuck with AV with no way out, no way forward or back. Of course they want you to think that, because they know as well as I do, that persuading you
to Vote No to AV on the 5th of May for any reason at all will serve their purpose of keeping First Past the Post.
to Vote No to AV on the 5th of May for any reason at all will serve their purpose of keeping First Past the Post.
The fact is that if you vote No to AV, for any reason at all, your vote will be indistinguishable from the No votes of those who simply want to keep First Past the Post. Each and every No vote will be interpreted as such. This is down to the wording of the referendum question, which merely asks which you prefer out of AV and “the current system of FPTP”. Your No vote, along with all of the others, from fans of PR and fans of FPTP alike will be
taken to mean that you prefer FPTP, nothing more, nothing less. Ask yourself: If the current system were AV, would you vote to change to FPTP? A no to AV vote in May 2011 would be the exact equivalent of doing just that. You won’t be able to specify why you’re voting No on your ballot. Thus the response to an overall No vote in May will be “The people have declared that they are happy with the current system and have elected to keep First Past the Post.” It will certainly not be “Oh dear, do you not like the Alternative Vote? Well perhaps you would like another referendum on something else instead.” A No to AV vote would kill off any opportunity for changing the voting system for a very long time indeed, and it would be especially soul destroying to those who have been working themselves to the bone to get us just this far.
taken to mean that you prefer FPTP, nothing more, nothing less. Ask yourself: If the current system were AV, would you vote to change to FPTP? A no to AV vote in May 2011 would be the exact equivalent of doing just that. You won’t be able to specify why you’re voting No on your ballot. Thus the response to an overall No vote in May will be “The people have declared that they are happy with the current system and have elected to keep First Past the Post.” It will certainly not be “Oh dear, do you not like the Alternative Vote? Well perhaps you would like another referendum on something else instead.” A No to AV vote would kill off any opportunity for changing the voting system for a very long time indeed, and it would be especially soul destroying to those who have been working themselves to the bone to get us just this far.
The Alternative Vote referendum was offered by the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats in exchange for the formation of the coalition that has allowed David Cameron to form the current government. It is seen by many on both sides as a compromise between no reform on the one hand; and on the other, the reform that many
members of all parties (including a large number of Liberal Democrats, many Labour supporters and even some Conservatives – let’s not forget that there are also conservative voters in many constituencies across the country who are cheated of a fair vote by the current system) have been campaigning for, for a very long time, culminating in Take Back Parlimament’s well publicised demonstrations in May 2010.
members of all parties (including a large number of Liberal Democrats, many Labour supporters and even some Conservatives – let’s not forget that there are also conservative voters in many constituencies across the country who are cheated of a fair vote by the current system) have been campaigning for, for a very long time, culminating in Take Back Parlimament’s well publicised demonstrations in May 2010.
But I have a feeling that there is more to the offer of AV than a mere compromise. I believe it was a shrewd tactical move on the part of those Conservatives who are now supporting the No to AV campaign. As members of the No Campaign are so fond of reminding us, AV is not PR. Since it’s also not wanted by those in favour of the status quo, they’re trying to impose on us the idea that “nobody wants it”. Well played them. But we, the general public, are cleverer than that. We must not buy this nonsense. They are trying to hide their real agenda, that they simply want to hang onto First Past the Post, with its minority safe seats, wasted votes, tactical votes and split votes. They are trying to make us lose sight of the fact that the Alternative Vote improves on all of those things.
AV isn’t perfect, and it certainly isn’t proportional, but it does improve hugely on many of the flawed elements of the current system, and of those elements on which AV doesn’t improve, none are made any worse. A quick examination of the voting mechanics of both systems can demonstrate that, as is done excellently on the isupportav site here: http://isupportav.co.uk/av-is-better/. You may have noticed that the No to AV arguments are not based on voting mechanics at all. They make grand claims, but they don’t support them with facts. Instead they simply try to scare people with bogus statistics and warnings of blind alleys and disproportionate results. I would like to finish this blog entry by arguing that the truth is in fact the opposite of those warnings.
It should be enough for any voter interested in fair votes that AV is an improvement on FPTP. After all, AV is what’s on offer and as much as some of us might want to see another system such as AV+ or STV instead, that
debate will have to wait because for now the choice is only between FPTP and AV. Even so I would now like to point out that for those of you who do want further change, your best option for this referendum is still AV. Not just because AV is a lesser of two evils and if we have to be stuck with one or the other it might as well be AV rather than FPTP, as true as that may be, but because by voting for AV, you are rejecting not only FPTP but “The
Current System of FPTP” and thus you are demonstrating that the people do want change.
debate will have to wait because for now the choice is only between FPTP and AV. Even so I would now like to point out that for those of you who do want further change, your best option for this referendum is still AV. Not just because AV is a lesser of two evils and if we have to be stuck with one or the other it might as well be AV rather than FPTP, as true as that may be, but because by voting for AV, you are rejecting not only FPTP but “The
Current System of FPTP” and thus you are demonstrating that the people do want change.
A Yes to AV vote on the 5th May 2011 will show that the people want change. That can’t be spun as easily as a No vote. A No vote can be spun as a vote in favour of First Past the Post, and of keeping the Current system, but a yes vote, while it can be spun as a vote in favour of AV, the spin will not be able to cover up the fact that AV is all that is on offer. Furthermore, once FPTP has been replaced, the establishment won't have a status quo to cling onto and the way will be made for reasonable debate centred around the best interests of the voters between AV and a ranger of Proportional Systems.
Those in favour of PR will be able to say “look, the people already demonstrated that they don’t like change, by rejecting FPTP, and we intend to show that the people want further change by campaigning for PR!” If PR is your
goal, then take what’s on offer, and then we’ll be in a far better position to ask for more. The alternative is to say no, which would not only endorse the current system, but deal a massive blow to a large number of people who have been stirred up to campaign for reform. Most people simply wouldn't have the will to go through it all again after losing. They'd be more likely to say "what's the point?" and that would be that.
So if you’re simply not happy with the unfairness of First Past the Post, then vote Yes to AV. If you feel that AV is not enough and you want further change, you still need to vote Yes to AV to put yourself in a better position to achieve that change. The only reason to Vote No to AV would be that you feel that First Past the Post is the best system we could possibly have, and I’ve yet to see a real demonstration of that particular idea from anyone. A No vote for any other reason would be the worst thing you could possibly do for British Politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment