AV is a quick fix benefitting only politicians. And Lib Dem ones at that.

by Dan Johnson

In May of last year, Teesside suffered a shock. It was one the Labour party had warned against, but nonetheless people were taken aback. The people of Redcar, devastated by the closure of a local steelworks, blamed their MP, Vera Baird, and sought solace in the arms of the Lib Dems, and many now regret it.

We are often told that in too many seats votes don’t count, that those seats are “safe”, but events in Redcar show that it simply isn’t true. Who, after the 2005 election, would think Labour would lose this seat?

Who, after the elections in 2001 in Blaenau Gwent, Brent Central or Hornsey and Wood Green would suspect that the next time they went to the polls a Labour MP wouldn’t be returned?

There’s no such thing as a safe seat. In fact, the LibDems have made a Parliamentary party out of proving this at by-elections and general elections alike.

The argument for switching to AV is that it ends the culture of jobs for life and safe seats. Yet there is no such thing as a safe seat.

In a marginal seat under AV, the votes of the third party will almost certainly send someone over the finishing line. Why should a Labour-Tory marginal be decided by people who have made a conscious choice to vote for the Lib Dems?

If we are to win the next election, we must win in the Tory-held marginals. We can do this by convincing left-wing Lib Dems that we deserve their second preference, or we can go for the swing voter, who voted Labour in 1997 but voted Tory last time or simply stayed at home.

Lord Hailsham talked about an “elective dictatorship”: essentially why should a few per cent here and there mean the difference between a government and the opposition? AV penalises the second party, which makes the country more of an elective dictatorship and certainly not fairer.

AV doesn’t make elections fairer, it exaggerates the result. In 1997, 2001 and 2005, the Labour majority would have been even larger and the Tories a poorer second place under AV. And the main beneficiaries? The Lib Dems. Last year, it would have made the House of Commons aneven more a hung Parliament. The main beneficiary? The Lib Dems.

If AV was such a great system, why have the Lib Dems not campaigned for AV to be the new voting system for the last 50 years? Instead, they’ve proposed PR. PR would at least be a fair reflection of voter intentions, although it breaks the historic link of each elector having a representative in Parliament.

If AV was such a great system, why is the referendum only applicable to Parliamentary elections? Why not propose AV for all elections, whether they are for the European Parliament, councils or the devolved administrations?

It is a quick fix to ensure that the Lib Dems stay in government for a full term, a political deal which will only benefit politicians, and Lib Dem ones at that.

Dan Johnson is a candidate for Stainsby Hill ward in the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council elections this May.


Tags: ,


12 Responses to “AV is a quick fix benefitting only politicians. And Lib Dem ones at that.”

  1. Confused says:

    Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

    Can someone PLEASE give the bored and long suffering (to all things AV) public a POSITIVE reason to vote for FPTP?

    Please?

  2. Adam Gray says:

    You mean on top of the ones Dan provided – like no safe seats under FPTP? I’ll give you several, confused (and I’m assuming you just want positives over AV, rather than other electoral systems – otherwise the list would be massively longer):

    1) FPTP means the candidate with the most votes wins. That’s fair.

    2) FPTP is straightforward, transparent, upfront and honest. It is easy to count and delivers understandable, meaningful results quickly and efficiently.

    3) FPTP delivers – 9 times in 10 – a majority government and strong local leaders accountable to their voters.

    4) FPTP does not award disproportionate power to the smallest minorities or benefit one party – and one party alone – consistently

    5) FPTP is the worst system for electing our representatives – apart, that is, from all the others. One of the reasons we have a settled, successful democracy is our electoral system.

    6) FPTP minimises the likelihood of hung parliaments, which in turn keeps the voters, rather than the politicians negotiating backroom deals after the election, in control

  3. Neil Lovatt says:

    Oh dear! I sometimes wonder who does the research and analysis for FPTP supporters. This is all over the place.

    Don’t you realise that to win an election you are battling for Lib Dem votes under FPTP, by definition in a marginal constituency you need third party supporters to switch their votes to you.

    You are quite right AV is not PR, I havent heard one AV supporter arguing that it was. It’s a majority system and is best suited in a multi party system to still allow voters to choose a government, just like the dual ballot system or the primary system.

    When you have a proper multi party system PR doesn’t tend to deliver a majority government. That’s the world we are living in now.

    I agree with “confused” above in that I’d love to hear some positive arguments for FPTP. If only so I can understand what supporters like yourself actually believe. Unfortunately it all seems to boil down to we want FPTP and two parties just like the good old days.

  4. Rachel Walker says:

    For example: I am Labour, I live in a Liberal-Tory marginal, what does FPTP offer me? Will you ask me to go against my political beliefs and tactically vote for the Liberals to try to help Labour by denying the Tories?
    If so, AV is a better system. Because at least I can put on paper, Labour is my first choice, but I’d prefer to see the Liberals in, anything but the Tories.

    I am not fully committed to the yes vote yet, but I feel it is the Tories who are no ones second choice, not Labour.

  5. Confused says:

    Dear Adam, that’s more like it. Now why can’t the No 2 AV campaign make those arguments instead if making misleading advert about AV endangering babies…

  6. Rachel Walker says:

    “In a marginal seat under AV, the votes of the third party will almost certainly send someone over the finishing line. Why should a Labour-Tory marginal be decided by people who have made a conscious choice to vote for the Lib Dems?” — Maybe because they also live in the constituency and have to live with the result for the next four/five years.

    Arguments like this one only serve to push me towards yes. I vote Labour because I believe Labour’s values. AV frees me to vote for the party I believe in, and make my vote count.

    Sorry Adam, but the six reasons you give leave me unconvinced, they are good, or bad, it all depends how you look at them. And 5, well really, at that rate we might as well take a punt on something different rather than the same old shit.

    I still believe FPTP helps the Tories more. Convince me I’m wrong.

  7. Richard says:

    The problem is that Yes2AV keep saying it removes tactically voting but it in fact makes it more ingrained in the system.

  8. Neil Lovatt says:

    Adam,
    Thanks for putting up some actual arguments so it’s possible to actually have a debate.

    The trouble here is I think many FPTP supporters seem to think that they are arguing against PR (and I’m the first to admit that some AV supporters fall into the same trap). Your arguments below would carry much more weight if they were against PR but against AV I think the end up getting turned back on themselves.

    I’ll try to take each one in turn:

    “You mean on top of the ones Dan provided”

    Actually there are no positive arguments for FPTP in the article above, it’s just a bit of poorly analysed knocking copy bordering on tribalism.

    1) FPTP means the candidate with the most votes wins. That’s fair.
    This is a highly subjective opinion, for example in a constituency with 10 candidates theoretically one cold be elected with 10.001% of the vote. I’m not sure how that counts as fair, but like I said it’s a subjective argument so clearly everyone will have their own take on that one.

    2) FPTP is straightforward, transparent, upfront and honest. It is easy to count and delivers understandable, meaningful results quickly and efficiently.

    I’m not sure I would call a system that can allow a party with less votes than party A to win more seats than party B – honest and straightforward? I’m not saying that AV would be any better at this but I’m not the one making the claim.

    I also think that it’s perfectly reasonable to apply these arguments to AV so again highly subjective.

    3) FPTP delivers – 9 times in 10 – a majority government and strong local leaders accountable to their voters.

    AV will also deliver majority governments, if you look at the article above it actually notes that AV exaggerates majorities.

    FPTP supporters need to work out what they are arguing about, if it’s the case that they want majority governments the AV is the way to go in a multi party system.

    Furthermore and local leaders backed by at least 50.01% of the electorate under AV, and not the theoretical 10.01% noted above. There are several constituencies under FPTP where well over two thirds of the electorate don’t support their MP.

    4) FPTP does not award disproportionate power to the smallest minorities or benefit one party – and one party alone – consistently

    Neither does AV and it more certainly does not benefit one party alone.

    5) FPTP is the worst system for electing our representatives – apart, that is, from all the others. One of the reasons we have a settled, successful democracy is our electoral system.

    There is absolutely no evidence to back up the claim that the success of our democracy is our electoral system. I would actually contend that FPTP served the country well when we had a two party system, it does not do so in a multi party system which is what we have now. The situation will only get worse and you can expect FPTP to start delivering far more erratic and illogical results as the distribution of votes gets wider. AV gives a better chance of majority governments in such a multi party supporting electorate.

    6) FPTP minimises the likelihood of hung parliaments, which in turn keeps the voters, rather than the politicians negotiating backroom deals after the election, in control

    Not compared to AV under a multi party system it doesn’t. Furthermore it pushes the decision about electing a government to the voters rather than politicians.

    As I said I think that you are arguing for FPTP but against a proportional system. AV is a majority system which is adapted for a multi party system and basically provides the same net effect as the French dual ballot system or the US primary system. Every one of your arguments seem to be a stronger and stronger case for AV. Maybe you should think about switching sides 🙂

  9. Rachel Walker says:

    Richard, quite possibly.

    But as I see it, using AV you can make a vote on record that says I want A, but would rather have B than C.
    In FPTP, tactically voting, I pretend I want B because I definitely don’t want C. No one gets to know I actually wanted A.

    I was very much NO up to a few weeks ago, but I find it easier to argue for YES.

  10. theProle says:

    >There’s no such thing as a safe seat.

    What’s Bootle (for example) then? Last returned a Tory in 1935, lowest a Labour candidate has polled since then was 53% in 1983, average Labour vote is in the 70% range.

    About the only ways I can see that Bottle could ever cease to be a Labour seat (at least in the next 20 years) is if a sitting MP got expelled or left the party, or if someone dropped a nuclear bomb on it and wiped out most of the inhabitants.
    Granted changing demographics might eventually do for it, but not without plenty of warning as it gradually slips through the rankings.

    Not that AV is going to make it any less safe mind…

  11. Craig says:

    In debating this, do be careful about systems that use a party list to top up seats. Those proportionally appointed representatives represent the party, not the electorate. They are entirely in debt to the party for the gift of their generous livelihood and are required by the party to toe the line or become unemployed.

    As a result, the PR top-ups are Zombies. They vote in Council or Parliament as a block, don’t debate anything unless instructed to do so and sleep soundly between voting events. This is not conjecture. There are real PR governments out there, and this is exactly what happens.

    Electorates keep representatives on their toes. (Except in Bootle) Please tie the career prospects of any representative to satisfying a constituency, not a party.

  12. Neil Lovatt says:

    Good point Craig. Although there are relatively easy fixes to that. Also there is no evidence that the AMS members in the Scottish Parliament act in the way in which you say. However it’s easy enough to have the electorate determine the order of the top up members rather than the Party, you can also insist that all AMS members have to stand in a seat as well.

    Of course this isn’t anything to do with AV 🙂

Leave a Reply