Yes, I hear you say, yet another post about the pros and cons of AV as we build up to the referendum on May 5th. But bear with me, because I’ll keep this as brief as possible. Here’s why I think we should vote No to AV.
Forget for a moment all the points being made by the No campaign, about the estimated high costs of AV and all the debate about One Person, One Vote. Let’s for a moment imagine that the Yes campaign wins, and the next General Election in the UK uses AV. If this happens, there are two possible scenarios when it comes to the outcome:
1. The outcome of the election is the same as it would have been under the current system, ie the same party or parties end up in power.
2. AV changes the outcome of the election. The two big parties lose votes at the expense of the others, meaning a much higher chance of another coalition government.
Neither is good for the country. If changing the voting system has little or no impact on the result, as various research has suggested (including the BBC and LSE), then why spend public money on changing the voting system? Counting the vote under AV will invariably take longer, thereby costing more than the current system. With cuts being made left, right and centre (no pun intended), surely the funds could be better channelled into schools, hospitals and the like?
Update: @halfmanhalfwit on Twitter made the point that counters get a flat fee no matter how long the vote count takes. A valid point. However, there will invariably be other administrative costs involved with changing a voting system on this scale. There will surely also be a big educational advertising campaign required come the next election to remind voters how it works. But this doesn’t alter the point that if the outcomes of future elections are the same under AV as under the current system, we’d be changing the system for the sake of changing it, not because it’s going to lead to more accountable governments.
But let’s say AV does alter the outcomes of our General Elections, leading to more coalition governments. This too is a bad thing – when parties enter into a coalition, they necessarily have to make compromises and go back on election manifesto pledges. The stark reality of this was shown when key Lib Dems recently backed plans to increase university tuition fees, despite having said they would scrap them in their 2010 General Election manifesto. More coalitions in the future would lead to more such situations, from all parties involved. It means that parties will be able to promise things in their manifestos that they know they can’t or won’t deliver – and they’ll be able to blame the failure on the fact that they were part of a coalition. The manifestos won’t be worth the paper they’re printed on.
The current system has largely led to single-party governments, which means you know what you’ll get from the party that wins, and it’s easier to hold the government to account. There’s no hiding for MPs whose parties don’t deliver on manifesto promises; they can – and do – get voted out.
So there you have it – neither possible consequence of a Yes vote is good for Britain. Vote No to AV on May 5th.
May 2, 2011 at 21:06
Assuming that the manifestos are written with the chance of a coalition in mind is it not more likely that they will take into account that very possibility and be tailored to suit such an outcome.
So rather than the hastily formed and generic coalition statement received this time round we’ll end up with parties that are more prepared to work together. This in turn ensuring that all the parties involved turn down the ‘ooh, that lot are evil and will eat your babies’ rhetoric at the same time.
And aren’t party manifesto the biggest lie in politics? I’d be interested to see a historical ‘manifesto pledge vs. actually achieved’ scorecard myself.
On the cash spent reforming the system I look at it this way: This is going to be an act of parliament and the debate and cost is already factored in. If we weren’t changing the voting system we’d be paying to debate and implement some other act. That money is and would already be spent no matter what the act is for. As for the extra cash on the referendum isn’t that a democratic price worth paying; just to see?
Personally, I think we’re all missing the larger point, which is how we get more people to actually vote. To me that’s the elephant in the poling booth (sorry) and how we vote a distant second.
If nothing else I truly find it fascinating that we can all look at the same data, listen to the same arguments and come to such different conclusions. I’ll be voting yes myself, good luck to ‘your lot’ *turns up nose, raises disapproving eyebrow*
)
Chris
May 3, 2011 at 09:17
Interesting points you make – to address them in order:
Manifestos: I agree that there should be much less of the ‘they’re evil’ rhetoric in politics – parties and their candidates should be focusing on what they themselves will do well, not what others will mess up. But I don’t think you can realistically write your manifesto with a coalition in mind because you can’t know before an election who you might end up in government with, and the compromises each party has to make will depend on the others in the coalition.
And I agree that governments do things that aren’t in their manifestos or fail to do things that are. Coalitions make this problem worse. My point is that if it’s a one-party administration, they have no one to blame but themselves when questions are asked, come election time. Voters can see what they did and didn’t do while in power and vote accordingly. Coalitions simply muddy the waters in this regard.
Cash spent – yes the cash would be spent on debating and implementing other acts. And I feel there are plenty of more pressing things that need debating and implementing than voting reform at this moment in time! As for spending the cash just to see if it helps, now’s not the time to be speculating with limited government funds…
Bigger question about voting numbers – couldn’t agree more, but I think the apathy is down to much more than just the way we vote (and I don’t think AV would help tackle this). But that’s a whole other can of worms…
And as you say, therein lies the value of political debate
Whatever the outcome on Thursday, let’s not forget how fortunate we are to live in a country where this kind of debate is not only permitted but encouraged:)
May 2, 2011 at 21:13
1) is true but 2) is rather misleading… there is only a higher chance of coalitions but let us not forget that we’ve also had a coalition from FPTP. And whose to say that coalition governments are bad? Yes manifesto pledges and broken… but that also happens with FPTP – labour introduced tuition fees, and top-up fees, sold of British air-space and a whole host of things that were not in their manifesto…
And who’s to say that coalition government is not a good thing? There is a viewpoint that holds that having a coalition rules out the loonies on the wings of all the parties involved… which has got to be a good thing! Compromise is something we do every day life, why should it be any different in government. And technically, the more parties in government, the more people should be happy because part of what they want to happen is happening…
May 3, 2011 at 09:13
You’re right that the current system has led to a coalition, but it’s very much the exception rather than the rule at the moment. And I don’t expect we’ll see another, come 2015…
And yes, single-party administrations break promises too, but at least they can’t blame it on anyone but themselves (whereas the Lib Dems and Tories could both conceivably blame broken promises on the fact that they were part of a coalition). I also agree that there needs to be more compromise between parties in the Commons, but not as part of a coalition, for the reasons I’ve given. If anything, the current coalition has led to even more disillusionment among voters, particularly of the Lib Dems because of a) forming a coalition with the Conservatives in the first place and b) the tuition fees issue. Even though, as you say, more parties in government should mean that part of what more people want to happen happens, you can’t know when you vote which parts of your party’s manifesto is going to get implemented. At least with a one-party administration, you have a much clearer idea of what you’re going to get.