For AV
In 1955, nearly 96% of people voted for either the Labour or Conservative party. In 2010, this figure was 65%. We need to change to the voting system because we, and our political culture, have changed. British politics is no longer about two tribes, two ideologies, two parties, fighting it out for the right to form a government. People now have a diversity of interests and priorities, and they often feel unrepresented by the two ‘main’ parties – they want political representation for green issues, on their euro-scepticism, and so on. First past the Post (FPTP) does not allow them that.
The growth in the popularity of third and other parties means that hung parliaments are becoming more likely under the present system, and that today the vote is split so many ways that an MP can be elected to Parliament on a tiny minority of the possible vote. This is not just a matter of not getting 50% of the vote – even when that happens, MPs are arriving at Parliament with negligible support. In Manchester Central at the last election, turnout was so low that the winning candidate was elected with 21,000 votes from an electorate of over 85,000. We need a system that can increase trust, engagement and public interest.
FPTP is a system that could almost be tailor-made to breed complacency. I’ll admit that vote-for-AV-because-of-the-expenses-scandal is a red herring, but many seats are so safely in the hands of one party or another that they have become fiefdoms that can be bestowed on those who do and say the right thing, and climb the right pole. How else was the Labour Party able to engineer conveniently neighbouring constituencies for husband and wife team Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper? No doubt this is felicitous for their family arrangements, but it is indicative of a political life which is manipulated by the political class for their own benefit. AV would be a rebalancing of power, albeit a small one, in the way of the voter – it raises the bar for election, and would make every party think again about what a ‘safe’ seat would be.
Too many elections are fought out in a small collection of Middle England swing seats, with the two parties fighting over a few thousand votes in each, allowing those votes power of the direction of the country. There’s no doubt that AV would be a modest change, but is right that we approach reform cautiously and keep the good while getting rid of the bad. AV retains the best thing about the current system – the constituency link – while bridging the democratic deficit in the FPTP system.
It is certainly not perfect – no system is – but it is a considerable improvement on what we have and perhaps a step that will help create the conditions in future for proportional voting system. The danger of hung Parliament is an overstated, and a ridiculous argument given that we will get more and more of them as the national vote continues to fragment – just look at the Canadian experience with FPTP. And in any case, at the end of the day, what would it matter if AV did result on more hung Parliaments? The big two would be less able to sew up parliament turn by turn, landslide by landslide. Smaller parties and the important interests they represent – Green issues, for example – would have a greater opportunity to influence the political agenda.
David Livingston
Against AV
There’s plenty wrong with FPTP, but AV does nothing to correct the things that are wrong with it, and indeed introduces new problems. The Jenkins Commission – led by a Liberal Democrat – argued that AV could be dangerously unpredictable, and could exaggerate hefty majorities, and that it would seriously disadvantage the Conservative Party. I’m no fan of the Conservatives, but a voting system should aim for a level playing field over time.
AV will give a significant boost to the Liberal Democrats. Now they rightly feel aggrieved that they collect a substantial popular vote, but that because their vote is spread more thinly nationally, they do not collect a proportionately substantial number of seats. So AV would do something to correct that for them.
But it would do nothing to correct the situation for the Green Party or UKIP. If FPTP is a two party system best suited to the nineteenth century, then AV is a two and a half party system best suited to the early twentieth – it won’t help the Green Party or UKIP. In fact it will hide these parties from the national political scene.
All this reminds us that AV is the alternative that hardly anyone wants. Those in favour of proportional representation and a genuinely different political model will vote for it with gritted teeth and their fingers crossed behind their back, knowing full well that their vote is – to coin a phrase – tactical, and will increase the chances of a hung parliament, and so increase their Liberal Democrat chances of making STV the price of a future coalition.
This would be unwelcome on two counts. First, by its marginal boost to the Liberal Democrats they – and only they, bearing in mind that it will be incredibly hard for small parties to win seats – are given the gift of power beyond their size. It will be Nick Clegg and his successors who may get the chance to decide who the Prime Minister is. The horse trading and double dealing that are part and parcel of coalition government will be written into the system, rather than the occasional outcome of an undecided public. Second, you only need to look across the
FPTP is not proportional – it makes no virtue of proportionality (neither does AV by the way). What it does make a virtue of is clarity in outcome, and the ability get rid of people who are making bad decisions, or reneging on promises made. Amongst those with a genuine desire to serve the public good, we will always have a certain number of politicians who are either incompetent or dishonest. The best we can hope for is the ability to turn them out. That’s what FPTP gives us, and that’s why we should keep it.
Ali Bright
***
David Livingston is a retired bank manager from Somerset.
Ali Bright is a web-designer from Liverpool.
