Morning:
6°c
The alternative vote system of elections is about the most unloved way of electing politicians in the world.
Australia has a similar system, called preferential voting, but otherwise only Fiji and Papua New Guinea elect their parliaments by the alternative vote. The proposed referendum will offer a system that is hardly used anywhere and that nobody here really wants.
The Conservatives stood on a platform of keeping the present system. The Labour leadership really wanted something called “AV-plus”. Until the election, the Lib-Dems wanted a system called “single transferable vote”. As recently as April this year, Nick Clegg described the alternative vote system as “a miserable little compromise” and in January, as “worthless and doesn't go nearly far enough”. The only reason it is on the UK agenda now is because of the quirks of coalition government.
It should come as absolutely no surprise that the coalition negotiations were infused with more than a touch of bluff and counter-bluff and involved spur-of-the-moment policy deals even on fundamental constitutional change. The so-called “new politics” was somewhat oversold. Disraeli coined the phrase “England does not love coalitions” in the 19th century for similar reasons.
As the novelty of the new Government inevitably fades, and MPs face the grim reality of voting for policies that they thought they were elected to oppose, things will not get easier for them — or for the Government.
What exactly is the new voting system the coalition wants voters to consider? Under the alternative vote, instead of a single cross for the candidate of your choice, you number each candidate (1,2,3 etc) in order of preference. If a candidate gets more than half the first preference votes, he/she wins. If not, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and his/her votes are redistributed according to voters' second preference.
Superficially attractive, but it gets complicated. “As the process continues the preferences allocated to the remaining candidates may not be the second choices of those electors whose first-choice candidates have been eliminated. It may be that after three candidates have been eliminated, say, when a fourth candidate is removed from the contest one of the electors who gave her first preference to him gave her second, third and fourth preferences to the three other candidates who have already been eliminated, so her fifth preference is then allocated to one of the remaining candidates.” (Simon Hix, Ron Johnston and Iain MacLean, Choosing an Electoral System, 2010.) So there you have it. That is what is on offer.
Many people want “fair votes” (ie more proportionality) but the alternative vote system is manifestly not “fair votes”. Researchers estimate Labour would have won a bigger 1997 majority (199) under the alternative vote than the 165 they got under first past the post. Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, appointed by Tony Blair to chair the 1998 Independent Commission on the Voting System, concluded: “On its own, AV would be unacceptable because of the danger … it might increase rather than reduce disproportionality.”
Supporters claim the alternative voting system would “make every vote count”, but the votes cast for the smallest parties (like the British National Party) get recounted, possibly again and again. Why should BNP voters' second, third or fourth preferences count the same as a Conservative, Lib-Dem or Labour first preference? Winston Churchill described how the alternative vote gives equal weight to “the most worthless votes for the most worthless candidates”.
Whatever the case for changing the voting system, the case for the alternative vote has not been made. The real reason the Lib-Dems want it is as a means to an end. It looks as if it would increase the number of Lib-Dem MPs, so then they would capture another hung parliament and could then force yet another change to the voting system.
Whatever the outcome, a “yes” vote next year would be a leap into the unknown. The real question is, why abandon the system that is tried and tested, where each vote is of equal value, which has done the UK well for about 300 years, which remains the most widely used system in the world, and under which the most popular candidate wins? The real democratic advantage of the present system is that the British people can remove a government they no longer want. The House of Commons is not merely a representative assembly. It also chooses the government.
Detailed parliamentary scrutiny of the proposed change will concentrate minds. There will also be a protracted argument in Parliament about how the referendum should be conducted. Many of us feel that if we are to have a referendum, at least it should be fair. For Clegg to insist on fixing the date (May 5, 2011) on the same day as elections to the Scottish Parliament, to the Welsh Assembly, and to much of local government in England is a cheap and naked attempt to cloud the debate before the vote and to distort the result.
This is not about MPs venting frustration. There is a serious principle at stake. No serious democracy would hold a national referendum on a major constitutional issue on the same day as other elections. Can you imagine Switzerland voting on whether to join the UN with other elections going on at the same time? That is why the Electoral Commission, when considering a suggestion that a Euro referendum be held with other elections in 2003, gave a clear ruling: “Referendums on fundamental issues of national importance should be considered in isolation.”
More recently, the House of Lords Constitution Committee concluded that “there should be a presumption against holding referendums on the same day as elections”. Let's hope Parliament votes for a fair referendum.
Bernard Jenkin is Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex, chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee, and is the member of the 1922 Executive of Conservative backbench MPs responsible for the Alternative Vote No Campaign
Reader views (26)
If Bernard Jenkin's had an analytical mind and a good conscience he wouldn't write for the Evening (lack of) Standard(s)
- Modface, London, 23/10/2010 14:09
Report abuse
" No serious democracy would hold a national referendum on a major constitutional issue on the same day as other elections."
Apparently, they would. The current Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system is being put to the vote in New Zealand in conjunction with the 2011 General Election....
- Paul Comrie-Thomson, Wellington, New Zealand, 24/08/2010 22:14
Report abuse
Written by an uninformed biased journalist quite obviously aligned with the right who are desperate to hang on to the only system that would ever give them a majority. Looking back at past elections is mis-leading as people would vote differently under a different system and the so called anomalies that would arise under a proportional system are what is really over sold. Every election under fptp has huge elements of negative voting because the voter has no hope of having their vote count. The young people coming through the education system arent burdened with this old deep seated prejudice so there is hope for a brighter future but we must shout as loud as these old dinosaurs to make the case for a fairer and more inclusive system.
- C Darrington, Reading England, 07/08/2010 07:01
Report abuse
Having identified some weaknesses with AV, does this mean that Bernard Jenkins will be tabling an ammendment to see the referendum changed to a better voting system? Or is this simply an excuse to stick to the even more flawed FPTP system we currently have?
AV might not be the first choice of either Labour, the Lib Dems, or even the Greens and SNP for that matter. But there's one thing they all agree on - it's a worthwhile improvement on FPTP.
- Daniel Henry, Leicester, 06/08/2010 23:19
Report abuse
I agree with Bernard Jenkin that AV is a bad system. The trouble is that FPTP is worse. He is scared of AV because he doesn't want voters to be able to express preferences as that might lead to demands to make those preferences even more effective by introducing multi-member constituencies.
- Simon Gazeley, Bath, England, 06/08/2010 21:21
Report abuse
FPTP is a manifestly broken system allowing many MPs to sit tight in safe seats for as long as they choose, often with the support of only 30 -40% of their electorate. AV isn't perfect but it is a step in the right direction and at the very least would ensure MPs are supported by at least 50% of voters in their constituency.
A big vote against AV would undoubtedly be interpreted as a vote of satisfaction with FPTP by those with vested interests in keeping the old system (I wonder who those people might be?) As other people have already mentioned, the AV question is much bigger and more important than party loyalties. This is our chance to show that the ordinary people of this country have a choice and our choice is to change from a system that enables the establishment to ride rough-shod over us to a system where we can begin to have a stronger voice. Personally, I choose change.
- Clea, Barnstaple, Devon, 06/08/2010 19:32
Report abuse
“Superficially attractive, but it gets complicated.”
Not for the voter. All we have to do is choose our 1st 2nd and 3rd preference. Or just our 1st and leave the 2nd and 3rd blank. Simple
“Supporters claim the alternative voting system would “make every vote count”, but the votes cast for the smallest parties (like the British National Party) get recounted, possibly again and again.”
Misleadingly phrase your statement to infer that the scary party’s votes could get counted “again and again”. Oh my god! If their votes keep getting counted again and again they might become the government!!
“Why should BNP voters' second, third or fourth preferences count the same as a Conservative, Lib-Dem or Labour first preference?”
Because every vote is equal regardless of who casts is and which party it is for. That is the basis of a democracy.
Regarding the authors bogeyman, the BNPs support collapsed in the election. They even lost their city councillors. Yet the author repeatedly uses them as a scare tactic. Most proportional voting systems have a threshold. In New Zealand it’s 5%, meaning a party needs over 5% of the popular vote to gain seats in parliament, which stops truly marginal parties like the BNP gaining seats.
“The real reason the Lib-Dems want it is as a means to an end. It looks as if it would increase the number of Lib-Dem MPs.”
That because it would more accurately represent the percentage of the population that voted for them. Have a look at this graph showing
- b, London, 06/08/2010 18:17
Report abuse
AV would have been more proportional than FPTP in every election but 1997. Indeed, we'd have had a coalition in 1992 and so 1997 would never have had such an anti-Tory vote.
Mr Jenkin would like to keep FPTP as it's the only way his extreme right-wing views are likely to get a majority again. He'd like to stop us coming out and voting for change next May. He'd probably like to withhold the vote again from women and people without land.
The rest of us would like more choice in elections. We'd like to break the two-party monopoly which has held the country back for 92 years. We want proper democracy and the only way we're going to is by getting AV first.
- David Gould, Wimbledon, UK, 06/08/2010 17:46
Report abuse
Whatever the case, (I’m sure there is one out there amongst you oiks) the case for the alternative vote has not been made (I said so and if you don’t believe me then you should). The real reason Lib-Dems want it is as a means to an end (and that’s why the Tories and Labour are blooming well against it we represent you people plenty already mateys and you should be bally grateful for it too don’t cha know). It looks as if it would increase the number of Lib-Dem MPs (so – I don’t vote for them but that’s their job surely, hell plenty of the country didn’t want you guys in even with FPTP your still losers), so then they would capture another hung parliament and could force yet another change to the voting system.” (‘Cos that’s how it has to be done because the public has to try to trick power back out the hands of you lot).
Captures the essence of your whole piece doesn’t it?
Oh yes nice scare tactic use of the lunatic BNP by the way. If you recall they got trounced in the election, there are plenty of other small parties out there other than rebranded black shirts don’t cha know? Same old Tories.
The point is to get change - isn’t that the platform you people stood on?
Why is it we can create Charters for hospitals and talk about patients as consumers with choice but we can’t allow the public to have more involvement in the important things like the political process, the economy, climate, foreign policy? Oh I know. Because you think we’re idiots.
- Simon T, London UK, 06/08/2010 17:16
Report abuse
In close two way seats AV is a very fair and proportional way to elect the representative. It is good to retain that which is great about our current system in a close link between representative and constituents. In our seat we have a very close choice between LibDem and Conservative and many labour voters felt they had to vote LibDem to avoid a conservative win, unaware that this would be the unintended final consequence. A vote for Labour with a 2nd AV for LibDem would be a fairer and more honest way to achieve the same thing, and would also allow outside parties the chance to build and increase their vote. Overall this proposal is better than FPTP in the absence of any other real proposal and gets my wholehearted support.
- John Scott, Frome, Somerset, UK, 06/08/2010 17:12
Report abuse
Don't forget that in 2005 FPTP gave Labour 55.7% of the seats - with 35.2% of the votes. It's not really a 21st-century way of doing things, is it?
- Sid, Rayleigh, Essex, 06/08/2010 17:00
Report abuse
Nothing you've said supports FPTP, AV is the poor relation of STV, but it would be a reasonable stepping stone so that voters understand the change.
The fact that a 1st preference for the BNP would get transferred is true, but a cornerstone of a democracy is that you allow people you disagree with to express their views.
- Nathaniel Simpson, Bradford, 06/08/2010 16:57
Report abuse
Preferential voting systems where one lists candidates not parties encourage independent candidates. Electors can rank them highly knowing, should they be eliminated, their vote will not got to waste. On the whole this makes AV as opposed to FPTP a good thing for democracy.
- Matthew Doye, Martock, 06/08/2010 16:23
Report abuse
AV ensures that every elected official has more than 50% explicit support of their constituents. It gives them a much stronger mandate than the current system without changing proportionality and risking the loss of strong government. It eliminates tactical voting and ensures that every vote is positively cast. Small party votes are counted once, then discarded and second preferences, which will most likely be drawn from the major parties are then counted instead. That's not a vote for a minor party being counted twice. It simply gives minor parties' supporters the ability to express their preference without dividing major parties' support. In your BNP example, it ensures that the far right doesn't eat into the Conservative support. More realistically, the Tories are more likely to benefit from second preference votes from UKIP's supporters; a key split that's denied them an overall majority in the last four general elections.
I look forward to casting my vote positively rather than having to vote against a strong incumbent in my safe seat constituency.
- Joe, Suffolk, 06/08/2010 16:23
Report abuse
In 1951, Clement Attlee’s Labour Party polled more than a million votes more than Churchill’s Conservatives, but the distortions allowed by the first-past-the-post system saw Churchill form the government having won 321 seats to Attlee’s 295. It’s also worth noting that in that election the two main parties won 93% of the vote between them. In 2005 they won just under 68% – and this year, the figure was down to 65%. As politics becomes more pluralistic, we are going to find ourselves having to form coalitions more frequently.
- Sid, Rayleigh, Essex, 06/08/2010 16:19
Report abuse
As a Canadian electoral reformer opposed to AV here, I have to agree that AV is worthless and can easily increase disproportionality. Lord Jenkins estimated it would do so in a day when almost all Lib Dems would give second preference to Labour. But in 2015, if the Coalition has held together, the campaign will be the Coalition vs. Labour. Lord Jenkins said of AV "Its effects are disturbingly unpredictable" since most voters will use the second preference to vote against whoever they are mad at on election day. After the 2015 debates, Lib Dem voters will likely be mad at Labour and give massive second preferences to the Conservatives -- accidentally electing a Conservative majority government. No, Nick Clegg got it right the first time: "worthless."
- Wilfred Day, Port Hope, Canada, 06/08/2010 16:19
Report abuse
In a FPTP system in a constituency of 5 candidates, the winner needs only just over 20% of the votes. That means almost 80% of the constituency did not vote for that condidate. Can someone please explain to me the fairness of this system?
- AC, Walsall, 06/08/2010 16:11
Report abuse
"Why should BNP voters' second, third or fourth preferences count the same as a Conservative, Lib-Dem or Labour first preference?"
Bernard Jenkin seems to be overlooking something here. FPTP, unless you are lucky enough to be in a constituency likely to bring your chosen candidate to MP, encourages voters to vote for someone they don't actually want in power in order to keep their least favourite candidate out.
That is not democracy as it should be, that's democracy based on fear.
- Paul, Stafford, 06/08/2010 15:13
Report abuse
You make some good points about AV, however your support of FPTP is ludicrous. Nothing in that paragraph is accurate and it shows a severe lack of understanding on the issues involved.
The fact is that AV is not a great voting system, but it is an improvement on FPTP. AV provides more mobility and would help get rid of safe seats that the FPTP system perpetuates.
I can't help noticing that you happen to be in one of these safe seats (Harwich and North Essex). It looks like you are acting in self-interest with your support of FPTP rather than due to any valid argument.
- Rezdoggy, Manchester, 06/08/2010 13:02
Report abuse
The article contains a lot of errors and mistruths within in. I've written to the editorial to try and get them to publish something not so biased. AV is fairer that FPTP. AV will see at least 50% of the population voting for the eventual winner in some form. FPTP sees the majority of votes (usually in the region of 60-70% of votes) not counting at all. This is grossly unfair and allows the corruption and lies which came out last year to carry on. AV will make the MPs more accountable and we can vote out anyone the constituency doesn’t really like - even if the have a sturdy minority who always vote for them - this is far better. AV is supported by academics who can demonstrate that AV is better than FPTP. The only outcome will be a fairer system in which the majority have a say - there is nothing unknown in it , unless you are a corrupt MP or one of their chums that is. AV is not complicated - I've explained it to my 5 year old who understood it perfectly well. I could go on and on but all as I will say is if you have any doubts I would recommend you find out the truth (see take back parliament or Electoral Reform Society websites) rather than listen to people with obvious agendas in the matter. My credentials are I am a working bloke with 3 kids who has looked into this and came to my own coclusions. Bernard’s credentials are ... Well I hope you can see I haven't got a vested interests in this I just want the population (including me) to have more of a say in what goes on.
- Dave Thawley, Cannock, 06/08/2010 12:29
Report abuse
Voting systems are means of achieving a result. In themselves they have no worth. All of them will give you a winner and losers. What proportional representative system seek to achieve is just that, as near as possible to the preferences cast in the ballot paper. Some like the Alternative Vote are not
so good at that and others like the Single Transferable Vote is by far, the better at it.The current system,First Past The Post, is not very god at it. It is all down to what you want the system to deliver.
The argument often given, that abhorrent parties may get a foothold in national politics is true, but is it wrong?After all people in some number did vote for them.
When the referendum on AV or any other matter comes up, including any on European Union matters, look at what it is that you want it to achieve. Don’t dismiss it out of hand, because any politician tells you to do so. Don’t dismiss it because your party politics requires you to do so.
It is your vote, about a proposition, which will affect you. Use for your benefit and beliefs, not for the benefit of another person, party or you favourite newspaper of choice.
- Fernando North, London, 06/08/2010 10:49
Report abuse
What Jenkin neglects to mention is that we already use and AV-style system in the UK for London mayoral elections, and what's more, the Tory party itself has for thirty years used AV-based systems for electing their own party leaders. If his review of AV is true, then all the criticisms he made apply just as much to the Tory leadership process. Surely Jenkin is not proposing they scrap that system and go back to First Past the Post? Or is it one rule for them, one rule for the rest of us, because "politicians know what's best"?
- Will C, Stevenage, 06/08/2010 10:31
Report abuse
Bernard Jenkin's defence of the present first-past-the-post electoral system in yesterday's standard contains several misleading statements.
Votes can hardly be said to be 'of equal value', since only those cast for winning candidates (usually around 40 percent) actually count. The system has not been in place for a 'about 300 years', but since 1885; before that, two member constituencies were the norm, allowing those who had the vote a greater choice. And the system is not 'the most widely used system in the world'; most countries elect MPs regionally, allowing due weight to be given to the total number of votes cast for different parties.
Mr Jenkin is entitled to draw attention to some of the weaknesses of the 'Alternative Vote', but even this system is preferable to the democratic travesty that Britain is now almost alone in using to elect its government.
- Howard, London, 06/08/2010 09:41
Report abuse
He has left out a major issue -- the effect on the relative power of political parties and the electorate. If a potential candidate fails to get selected by their party, they can, as now, stand as an independent. But under AV they could no longer be accused of splitting their party's vote and it would make it possible for their supporters to vote for them without the danger of letting in the other parties. It needs careful consideration.
- TJ, London, 05/08/2010 22:57
Report abuse
So where is our Euro referendum? Anyone?
- John Smith, London, 05/08/2010 15:31
Report abuse
Right on so many points re. this.
- M, London, 05/08/2010 15:11
Report abuse
