This week saw the 'Alternative Vote' (AV) referendum campaigns start in earnest, with plenty of reminders as to why British politics needs to change. Unfortunately, it's not the voting system that's the main problem, it's the way political arguments are presented, with mudslinging, misleading propaganda, meaningless soundbites and catchphrases ("broken politics" anyone?), and pointless celebrity endorsements. In another example of misleading propaganda, the 'Conservative Research Department' has published some 'research' that claims Australian elections are more expensive than the UK's because they have AV, while failing to come up with any other possible reasons why the 'vote per head' figure is higher in a country where a population of just 22 million people is spread across 7.6 million square kilometres, making it the least densely populated country in the world. Elsewhere, Ed Miliband is reduced to recycling David Cameron's 2010 election catchphrases, and people are deemed to be authoritative advisors on electoral reform simply because they're good at cricket. What next? Will the Chuckle Brothers be endorsing the Conservative Party because they agree with their plans for reform of the banking system? If there's one consolation from all of the above it is that the cricketers' testimonies are amusingly reminiscent of Geoff Boycott's appearance on Brass Eye (the "walking continent of common sense" himself appears at 0:44 into that clip).
Apart from those criticisms, one other slightly depressing point to note is that on the day the Guardian was reporting the collapse in support of AV, most people featured in a vox pops segment on Radio 5 live didn't have a clue as to what AV was (skip to 36:17 for the AV discusssion) and even the subsequent explanation by 5 live's correspondent didn't explain at what point voters' third (and higher) preferences came into play (in case you're wondering, they are taken into account when an eliminated candidate's ballot papers are redistributed to the remaining candidates and the second preference on any of those papers was for a candidate that has already been eliminated). [If that link is unavailable, the BBC News website's guide to AV is here.] Whilst one can criticise people for being apathetic, much of the blame for that has to go to the way political debate is conducted (see above), thus alienating the general public.
There has been a lot of conjecture as to who will benefit and lose out if AV is implemented, but there would be one clear winner (the Lib Dems) and one clear loser, or set of losers (extremist parties such as the BNP). While the Lib Dems may not be so good at gaining enough votes to win seats outright under the current 'First Past the Post' (FPTP) system, they are the party best placed to receive second preference votes, since a Labour voter is unlikely to put the Conservatives as his second preference, and vice versa. It might also reduce the number of people who don't vote for the Lib Dems simply because they don't think they have a chance of winning, as those people could still feel they've influenced the outcome through their second preference votes. How many seats the Lib Dems would then gain isn't possible to predict with any certainty, but it would almost definitely mean that their share of seats in Westminster more accurately reflected their share of the national vote. The BNP meanwhile, are opposing AV, which has been seized upon by the 'Yes to AV' campaign on the grounds that if the BNP want one thing, the opposite is probably the better option. While the BNP might hope to win a seat where their supporters vote in sufficient numbers to get a bigger share of the vote than any other candidate - albeit with much less than 50% of the total vote - it's very unlikely that enough voters would mark them as second preference (even allowing for protest votes) to get them past the 50% mark.
Even though the Green party are in favour of AV, it's unclear as to whether they would benefit from the introduction of AV. Their victory in the Brighton Pavilion constituency came with 16,238 out of 51,834 votes cast - just 31%. If AV had been in place in 2010, it's a matter of pure speculation, but open to doubt, as to whether they would then have amassed enough second preference votes to get past 50% before the Labour candidate who came second in the original vote.
Similarly, UKIP are also saying "Yes" to AV without any clear indication as to whether they would benefit. They were the largest party (in terms of votes received nationally) not to win a seat at the 2010 election. Like the BNP, they could hope to win a seat under FPTP where they don't need to muster 50% of the vote, but it's doubtful whether they would receive enough second preference votes (presumably from Conservative voters) to win under AV. It would be nice if these two parties are supporting the 'Yes to AV' campaign because they believe it to be a fairer voting system, rather than because of any perceived electoral advantage to them - so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that is the case.
But even if you like the parties that will benefit from AV, or dislike the ones that will lose out, that isn't a valid reason for voting "Yes" in the referendum. The BNP should be defeated through rational argument rather than by loading the voting system against them. Similarly, it would be disappointing if the 'No' vote prevailed as a protest vote against the currently deeply unpopular Lib Dems.
Broadly speaking, AV would represent an impovement over the current system. It would be a good thing if candidates could no longer target a certain cross-section of the electorate in order to achieve the 35-40% of the vote that would almost certainly guarantee victory, but instead would have to work hard to appeal to the rest of the electorate in order to obtain the second preference votes that would get him or her over the 50% winning line. It would be a good thing too, that if your first preference wasn't for the ultimate winner, you could still have influenced the result through your second preference vote. Under the current system, if you don't vote for the winner, you might as well not have voted at all. The 'No' campaign can argue that it's not fair under AV that the person getting the most first preference votes might not win. But on the other hand, is it fair under the current system that someone who most people voted against can - and often does - win?
But if I had my way, I wouldn't stop at AV. There are two more reforms I would implement. Firstly, I would make voting compulsory. Secondly, I would add two more boxes to every ballot paper - "Don't know", and more pertinently, "None Of The Above". If you're going to force people to vote, you can't force them to have an opinion, hence the "Don't Know" option, which will also act as a gauge to measure how well politicians have got their message across and are engaging the electorate. Better that someone says "Don't Know" than votes out of ignorance. While AV would force politicians to try to attract broader support, the "None Of The Above" option would allow people to register positive disapproval of politicians, to send a message that their bickering, spinning, arrogance, and - in some cases - corruption won't be tolerated. A significant "None Of The Above" vote would represent a satisfying slap in the face for the politicians whose way of going about their business is deemed less than satisfactory. If "None Of The Above" actually 'won' a seat, it's tempting to suggest that the constituency concerned doesn't get an MP, either until the next election, or for a certain period of time after which a by-election would give the parties a second chance to convince the electorate of their worthiness to represent them. After all, if Belgium can manage quite happily for 8 months without a government, why shouldn't a constituency be able to get by without an MP for a while? But I'll step back form that, and instead say that in such a case, the 'real' candidate who came second should be made the MP, but only for a shorter term such as two years, after which he or she would have to defend their seat in a by-election. Yes, it would be more expensive, but isn't democracy worth it?
No comments:
Post a Comment