In the interests of broadening the discussion I asked Labour blogger Darrell Goodliffe and Green Rupert Read to set out the case for each side of the AV referendum. I asked them each to lay out their case either for a yes or no vote and then gave them a right of reply.
So: What’s the case for voting NO? These are the two lines I hear:
1) ‘AV is good for extremists’.
Simply a lie. See me recently on ITV, from 8 minutes in, here. AV is the worst of all possible systems for extremists such as the BNP. Which is presumably why the BNP are vigorously opposing it... AV, a system in which voters can ‘gang up’ on unpopular Parties, will help ensure that the BNP never gets elected to Westminster - and moreover, if introduced in local government elections, would lead to the defeat of virtually all their Councillors. AV would drastically reduce the bane of ‘tactical voting’ that’s a necessary evil for voters when a multi-party political system is squeezed into a two-party electoral system. In the process, it would shut the door on the electoral prospects of the BNP... But if you want Nick Griffin to wake up with a big smile on May 6th, then vote NO...
2) ‘To hurt the LibDems, vote NO’.
The NOtoAV campaign, understandably (given that they have no constructive arguments to offer) are trying to turn the AV referendum into a referendum on Nick Clegg. This is a cynical way to treat a hugely important constitutional question; but there’s another reason, less obvious, why it’s wrong: Nick Clegg's Party will not benefit from AV. Under AV, you can give your first preference to whoever you want to win. The Lib Dems might gain votes in areas where they are weak, under AV, as they will no longer be perceived as a "wasted vote" in those areas. But they will lose first preference votes in areas where they are strong, as people will no longer be compelled to vote for them tactically in order to cast a vote that is not "wasted". Losing votes where you are strong loses you seats; gaining votes where you are weak does not. (See Liberal Conspiracy, Rupert's Read). ...It simply isn’t true that AV will be good for Clegg’s Party!
…Look at those who are in favour of AV: Virtually all the ‘progressive’ elements in Labour, including of course the Milibands and Compass plus Hilary Benn, Jon Cruddas, John Denham, Sadiq Khan, Michael Meacher, John McDonnell, Joan Ruddock…; the Greens; plus most of ‘civil society’ including notably organisations such as Operation Black Vote. Look at those who are arraigned against AV: the entire right-wing press, the Tories, BNP, Taxpayers Alliance, a bunch of ultra-right-wing businessmen and climate-deniers who are funding NO… and the most tribal, uninspiring elements of Labour: Prescott, Beckett, Blunkett… Darrell, do you feel happy in the company you keep: Griffin, Cameron, Hague (Open Democracy), Murdoch, Dacre, Guido Fawkes (Rupert's Read) and Matthew Elliott?...
Why I am NO to AV....
Darrell Goodliffe: Cards on the table time; I support electoral reform (to AV+ or a Additional Member System). However, a change to AV is the wrong change to make and since that is what is on the ballot paper it's AV compared to First Past the Post we have to discuss; not FPTP v our dream system. A Yes Vote will not lead to further reform: Labour AV supporters overwhelmingly favour a stance of 'AV and no further'. The Liberal Democrats are facing an electoral apocalypse; whichever system the next election is held under and the Conservatives, well we all know what they want. Also, the Yes camp 'upselling' AV as something it isn't; proportional in any way shape or form, means that if it triumphs, people will rightly ask what's the point of another change rather than clamour for more. I am sure comrades reading this will pipe-up 'what about the Greens'....which leads me to my next point....
AV and smaller parties.... AV does not increase the chances of more MP's from smaller parties being elected. This is due to both the 50% threshold and the preference system. I am a member of Labour. I would under AV happily cast my second preference for the Greens. This would however, be pointless because my second preferences wont matter a jot; Labour will not be eliminated before a conclusion is reached where I live. However the preferences of the smaller parties under AV are unfairly weighted because the smaller parties are most likely be eliminated. It is inconsistent to claim AV will benefit the Greens and not the BNP in the same breath; the BNP's vote nationally is much higher than the Greens (sadly!)and therefore its their preferences that will need to be chased more often. Preferencing without proportionality is undemocratic and gives the second preferences of small party voters an unfair weight and makes some votes more 'equal' than others.
AV won't end tactical voting.... All it will do is shift the site of the tactical battle to peoples preferences, especially those people who vote for smaller parties. This is exactly what happened during the Labour leadership election where supporters of the three candidates who were never really in the running were assiduously targeted by the camps of both the Milibands.
AV doesnt ensure MP's elected by 50% of the electorate... Again, the Yes camp wants to have its cake and eat it; it says, 'Don't worry, AV is just like FPTP because you don't have to use your preferences'. However, if people don't then MP's will be elected by less than the magic 50% because those votes will simply stop being counted in the later rounds. This destroys another argument; that AV ends wasted votes. In my example above, all my subsequent preferences were wasted because my first choice wasn't eliminated and if somebody doesn't cast all their preferences then their vote isn't counted if their first choice Party is eliminated so theirs is too.
Change cannot just be for changes sake. It has to be the right change and the brutal fact is that AV is the wrong change; above anything else that is why I will be voting No on May 5th....
Rupert's response to Darrell:
Let me take Darrell's arguments in turn:
"A Yes Vote won’t lead to further reform": Irrelevant. The question is whether AV is better than FPTP. As I've shown, it is. …But furthermore: is further reform MORE likely if AV is voted down? If anyone agitated for PR during the next generation, after AV had been defeated, the answer would come back clearly: ‘Britain has rejected even the modest move to AV; so it is POINTLESS offering voters PR’…
"It’s inconsistent to claim AV will benefit Greens and not BNP": Plain wrong, as I’ve shown. The BNP oppose AV because they are HATED – hated extremist Parties hate AV for good reason… Meanwhile, it’s AV that has enabled Greens in Australia to get their first MP elected.
“AV won't end tactical voting”: Duplicitous wordplay. AV enables voters to vote for who they want, from 1st to last. It will end tactical voting as we know it, in which people vote only for the lesser of several evils.
“AV doesn’t ensure MPs elected by 50% of electorate”: Technically true, but deeply misleading. Under AV, virtually all MPs WILL be elected by a majority of voters; under FPTP, most MPs are elected by a minority.
Darrell's reply to Rupert:
I certainly would’t deny Rupert’s point that British politics is broken. Nonetheless, we have to ask a little more than if something is broken. It would be a poor doctor that just proclaimed a patient to be sick and not even offer a cure or, potentially even worse, offer the wrong kind of cure. My submission is that AV is not the right medicine for British politics.
I deal with Rupert’s first line-of-attack in my main text so won’t expand on that. Regarding AV and the Lib Dems; AV will objectively help the Lib Dem right, as most leftish Liberal Democrats have de-camped to either Labour or the Greens. So, Orange Bookers will use AV to cement their alliance with, and electoral dependence on the Conservative Party - AV is shown once again to weaken the left as a whole and strengthening the right, which will be the net effect of its introduction in other areas too.
Nonetheless, we have to judge AV on its merits as a system; the only effect that should be decisive is on our democracy and here its my submission that this ’miserable little compromise’ is deeply damaging and should be opposed.
Annie Leonard and co. (
Adrienne Mayor (
Ed Howker and Shiv Malik
Floella Benjamin (
Mark Watson (
Tim Jackson (
David Wilson (
Clive Lord (
Nickie Roberts
17 comments:
Thanks Darrell.
I think your claim that AV will benefit the Right is quite wrong. On the contrary, as I've argued on Liberal Conspiracy ( http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/06/28/why-the-left-will-always-be-at-a-loss-without-vote-reform/ ), the _Left_, being more pluralist than the Right, needs AV (or AVPlus, or STV, which AV might well in due course relatively easily segue into) the most. We need to be able to build a 'progressive alliance', we need to be able to cross-endorse where possible and appropriate.
I notice Darrell that you haven't responded to my question about whether you are happy in the company you keep. Are you pleased to be fighting alongside Cameron, Hague, Warsi, Beckett, Blunkett, Dacre, Murdoch, Elliott, Leach and Griffin? Does it not worry you even slightly that all these people and a truckload more of similarly unsavoury characters are all in agreement that FPTP must stay? Furthermore, don't fool yourself that a NO vote would help bring down the Coalition; on the contrary, it will bind the LibDems even tighter to the Tories for the next four years, as Clegg searches more strenuously for some constitutional reform to come out of this with in hand, and Cameron seeks to deliver what Clegg needs. Most likely, attention will shift seamlessly to Lords reform, to save the LibDems' blushes and find new electoral careers for some of their MPs who will lose in 2015.
AV lets far more of us play a part in choosing our MP, ensures that all MPs are backed by a genuine majority of voters, and lets us all show who we really support (instead of voting for someone we don't much like in order to keep out someone we like even less).
As Rupert says, it's far more effective than FPTP at keeping out extremists. It would also discourage parties from pandering to the opinions of e.g. racists: which party would want to see a wodge of BNP votes being transferred to their pile?
The NO campaign is nothing but a shameless mishmash of misrepresentations, half-truths and downright lies - see my blog http://bit.ly/ifQQIr.
AV gives far more of us a say in choosing our MP, makes sure all MPs are backed by a genuine majority of voters, and allows us to vote honestly for the party of our choice (rather than tactically for someone we don't much like to keep out someone we like even less).
As Rupert says, AV is far better than FPTP at keeping out extremists. Moreover it actually discourages parties from pandering e.g. to racists: which party would want to see a wodge of BNP votes being transferred to their pile?
Pretty well every statement by the NO campaign has been a misrepresentation, half-truth or downright lie. Shame they have so many rich - and anonymous - backers to help them spread their pernicious nonsense!
Darrell: Preferencing without proportionality is undemocratic and gives the second preferences of small party voters an unfair weight and makes some votes more 'equal' than others.
But this is also true of FPTP. One of Bolton West or Hendon was almost certainly decided by BNP second preferences in 2010 (the BNP didn't stand in either seat)
And in any seat with FPTP tactical voting, parties are already attracting second and third preferences.
AV makes the process more transparent, but FPTP still has exactly the same thing in a more hidden form.
Rupert: Under AV, virtually all MPs WILL be elected by a majority of voters;
My projections suggest that this is only true if "virtually all" means "about two-thirds". Admittedly most of the rest are only just below, in the 48-50% range.
But really, what's all this focus on 50% anyway. It's an internal property of the counting process, without any particular external meaning. It certainly doesn't mean "50% support" as YTFV are claiming.
It does mean that the candidate was preferred by the electorate as a whole to all other candidates not eliminated before the final round, which is an improvement on FPTP, but that's not got any relation to the magic 50% number.
(Aside: As a PR supporter, I quite like to see candidates elected on only 10-20% support, provided that that's the maximum threshold, not the minimum)
Rupert: AV is the worst of all possible systems for extremists such as the BNP.
Worse than FPTP for them, certainly. Worst of all possible, no. Condorcet would be considerably worse for extremists than AV. And anyone more extreme than the Lib Dems, for that matter, which makes it unsuitable as a Parliamentary voting system.
Darrell: the BNP's vote nationally is much higher than the Greens
This would not necessarily be true under AV, though. You can't assume that AV first preferences would be the same as FPTP votes.
Rupert: I notice Darrell that you haven't responded to my question about whether you are happy in the company you keep.
Perhaps because it's irrelevant?
If you rightly don't want the AV referendum to be a vote on Nick Clegg's popularity, it's also irrelevant who supports which side.
Thanks Cim.
You say: Rupert: Under AV, virtually all MPs WILL be elected by a majority of voters;
My projections suggest that this is only true if "virtually all" means "about two-thirds". Admittedly most of the rest are only just below, in the 48-50% range.
My response: I think that your projections are badly mistaken. Or at least: They are certainly out of line with others that I have seen, which suggest that over 90% of MPs would have 50% plus of votes under AV, once one has finished transferring everyone's votes bar the runner-up's and those whose preferences have run out before the last two. [Remember, about 33% already do have over 50%.] But of course, we can't really know the answer to this question: Because it depends how well the British people will adapt to AV. If most people use most of their preferences, then the figure will certainly be closer to 90% than to 67%.
Cim says: Rupert says: 'AV is the worst of all possible systems for extremists such as the BNP.'
..Worse than FPTP for them, certainly. Worst of all possible, no. Condorcet would be considerably worse for extremists than AV.
Well then I guess I stand corrected! It's nice to meet someone who is obviously more of an electoral systems geek than me. ;-) :-) Anyway: my point stands: the reason the BNP are opposing AV is because it is considerably worse for them than FPTP.
Cim claims that "anyone more extreme than the Lib Dems [will be disadvantaged by AV] which makes it unsuitable as a Parliamentary voting system." I think that this claim is plain wrong. The Greens will be advantaged by AV (relative to FPTP), for example. Sure, there will be a minority who deliberately place the Greens low on their preference order or leave us off altogether; but only a minority. It won't stop us getting elected in most places - and meanwhile the wasted vote argument will have disappeared, giving us a chance to win seats from behind as we did when we won our first seat in Oz, recently.
Furthermore, I think that the LibDems will actually suffer from the move to AV, which may please quite a lot of readers of this blog: http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-vote-no2av-to-spite-nick-clegg-meme.html
Cim says to me: "If you rightly don't want the AV referendum to be a vote on Nick Clegg's popularity, it's also irrelevant who supports which side."
No, that doesn't follow. I object to the referendum being made (stupidly, counterproductively - given http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/02/18/two-reasons-why-libdems-might-not-benefit-from-av ) into a referendum on Clegg; but I DO think it is fair to draw provisional conclusions about which side to be on from who else is on one's side and who else is on the other side. I can't think of a single declared major figure or organ or organisation in politics or in civil society or in the media [except perhaps for a couple of the Trades Unions] on the NO side who I wish was on the YES side. Whereas I am proud to be on the same side as Caroline Lucas, Ed Miliband, Michael Meacher, John McDonnell, Joan Ruddock, Charles Kennedy, Paddy Ashdown, Operation Black Vote, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Electoral Reform Society, the Observer, the INDY, and so on and so forth. It really is a case of the forces of conservatism against the forces of reform and pluralism. [The people funding the NO campaign are an especially sickening bunch.]
@Rupert,
Thank you too, and interesting debate. Having said that though I think your very wrong. The left is not 'more pluralist' than the right at all. In fact, I can think of one more political party to the right of the Conservatives (3, UKIP, BNP, English Democrats) than I can to the left of Labour (TUSC, Greens). Nationalist parties I dont count in either because they are a complicated and different phenomena. Liberal Democrats are definitely not in that category; the leftist progressive LDs have by and large left. The rest are precisely the people who will prop up the Tories.
Cim summed up why I havent answered your question. I dont think a NO vote will bring down the Coalition; the only force that can do this is the Conservative right, not the impotent and pointless Liberal Democrats.
@Cim,
Thanks for the comment. Your right about FPTP. Were AV+ to be on the ballot paper I would be campaigning for that. Having said all that of the two, AV and FPTP I prefer FPTP because there is no preferencing.
For the reasons I point out the Green vote probably wont radically increase at all because the people who do put them as a second pref probably wont have their second pref counted; I would do so, but Labour will never be eliminated so..... besides if you combine the BNP and UKIP the gap is something like 2 million votes and thats a big gap to plug.....
Thanks Darrell.
I think that the SNP and Plaid ARE on balance left-leaning, and (in Plaid's case) green-leaning. Plus, you have missed out some others: notably Respect, and also the SSP / Solidarity.
And I think you write off the LibDems far too swiftly. Think of people such as Evan Harris, Norman Baker, Simon Hughes, Richard Grayson, Shirley Williams, James Graham, etc.: They are not perfect, but they are hardly right-wing.
But if you read my LC article, you will see that anyway my main point is slightly different: I am talking about building a genuine pluralism among greens / lefties, to lay the groundwork for a potential rainbow progressive alliance from 2015 onward. That is obviously what Ed Miliband is realistically aiming for. What is your alternative strategy? Are you still hoping for an overall tribal Labour-only majority in 2015? Cloud-cuckoo-land, mate.
The Right can't build a coalition among the BNP (!!) and the English Dems (!). AV will only potentially help them in building links with UKIP (and the Orange-Bookers). For us, the prize is potentially much bigger. There was almost a rainbow progressive alliance in 2010, which would have consisted of every single Party / MP in Parliament except for the Tories (with the DUP probably sitting on the fence - remember, they hate the Tories because the Tories are in alliance with the OUP). AV will greatly help us build one that can actually win, next time.
And after all: If AV is a good enough system with which to elect the Labour Leader (and Ed M. wouldn't have become Lab Laeder without it), isn't it a good enough system with which to select out MPs?? Here's a real challenge for Darrell: Put your money where your mouth is, and if you are so against AV, then propose that future Lab Leadership elections take place by FPTP...
And what a bad joke that would be, were it to happen, and were Labour members to have to decide whether (in the Leadership election we have just had) to 'tactically vote' or not. E.g. Diane Abbott supporters would have had to decide whether or not to abandon her and just vote straight for Ed, without being able to vote for who they really wanted, or whether to risk David winning...
I put it to you, Darrell and everyone in Labour NO, that this thought experiment pretty thoroughly demolishes the case for a NO vote on May 5. It is clear that FPTP is a broken system, in multi-Party / multi-candidate contests. It really is quite hopeless, to try to defend it, outside of a 2-Party system context.
One more thing, Darrell: Don't let the best be the enemy of the good. Sure, AV Plus (though still not a proportional system) would be better than plain AV. But is that really any kind of reason to prefer the status quo over a small but positive change?
Surely not.
Rupert: As with a lot of things, it's sensitive to the initial conditions. I get between 10% and 33% depending on how strong the 3rd/4th party vote is, and how many people use 2nd, 3rd, etc. preferences. 33% based on polling just before the 2010 general election; 10% based on the recent Yougov/Channel 4 survey.
I'll tweak the swingometer this evening so you can look at my working for yourself.
Still, even 10% is rather a lot of seats. I don't see it as much of a selling point of AV if it's that unreliable (whereas a vaguer "more people's votes will contribute to the decision" would be)
"[will be disadvantaged by AV]"
I should have been clearer - that bit refers to Condorcet, not AV.
I meant to reply to that bit about the Lib Dems being disadvantaged by AV. I'm not sure they will be. Yes, they'll lose first prefs as the tactical vote unwinds and their "third party squeeze" tactic becomes unnecessary. But they'll get all of them back and more as second preferences unless they lose so many they're knocked into third place on round 1. And recent polling suggests that AV first prefs and FPTP votes are - for the big 3 parties, anyway - fairly similar for now.
"it is fair to draw provisional conclusions about which side to be on from who else is on one's side"
Hmm, I don't know. I'm of course not unhappy about being on the same side as all those people, but on the other hand, if it was a PR system up for discussion, I would almost certainly (for very different reasons, of course) be on the same side as the BNP - and that wouldn't be a sign that I was on the wrong side.
I am in favour of proper proportional representation and am appalled that the Lib Dems have not fought to bring us a referendum which allows us to vote for that. What we are faced with is either the old system which worked for a two party system but is no longer adequate - FPTP - or at leaast some progressive change - AV. Most of the Labour party progressives including Ed Miliband favour AV, only the old die hards favour FPTP. Most Greens favour AV. I will vote for AV on the grounds that it obliges candidates to reach out beyond the party faithful to gain a majority of votes, thereby ensuring that those elected have a reasonably broad base of support. this favours parties with good second votes and not those that have a fanatical following but not other support.
so a good option in my view
david seddon
Thanks Cim. Have you read my cited piece on the LibDems and AV? I think the arguments therein are very strong that the LibDems WON'T actually net-benefit from AV.
Rupert: Yes (I think I commented a couple of times on the LibCon version of it).
As I said above, I think tactical voting unwind, while definitely reducing the Libs 1st pref score, won't generally hurt their chances at winning the seat.
And to your other point, certainly polling is swinging against them compared with the general election, but there was some (good quality) second preference polling last week and it still, as I expected it would, showed them doing marginally better under AV than under FPTP. For it not to be a benefit, you'd need either the Greens or UKIP to advance very strongly (over time, under AV, yes - next couple of elections, no) to the point where they overtake the Libs, or Labour and Conservatives to give each other better preferences than they give the Libs (not likely)
Post a Comment