AV is getting the vacuous contest it deserves

This post was written by Reuben Bard-Rosenberg on February 18, 2011
Posted Under: Democracy

In a couple of months we will be taking a vote on the most basic aspect of our democracy – the way in which we elect our government. Yet one could be forgiven, over the past few days, for forgetting that such  politically important matters were at stake. First we had the much trumpeted revelation from the no to AV campaign that reform will cost £250 million (!). The figures themselves were rather suspect, but regardless of that, many rightly considered the whole argument to be ridiculous. As one person tweeted “egyptians abandon revolution, decide democracy is  too expensive.” The idea that we should keep the same undemocratic voting system simply to save a figure that amounts to less than 0.05 % of annual government spending, is pretty hard to sensibly defend.

"Expenses Scandal!!"

At the same time, supporters of AV are also stoically resisting the urge to focus on any important political principals. The headline statement from Nick Clegg yesterday was that FPTP allowed MP’s to abuse the expenses system.  ”When a person is corrupt, they should be punished” Clegg said. “When a system makes corruption more likely, it should be changed.” If there were  an offline equivalent to Godwin’s Law, it would almost certainly refer to the tendency of all politicians to invoke The Expenses Scandal. Though last year’s revelations were distasteful, they hardly demonstrated a level of corruption sufficient to materially effect our public services, or a form of corruption that would imperil our democracy (i.e. bribes for votes). In the cold light of day the issue seems miniscule compared with mass unemployment, the possible double-dip recession on our door step, or indeed the real democratic deficit inherent in first past the post. Yet expenses have become a kind of lowest common denominator argument that commentators  can use in place of politics.

Indeed the idea of democracy has been curiously absent in the campaign for AV. The term barely appears on the website of major pro-av pressure group Take Back Parliament, who instead have chosen the amorphous slogan of “yes to fairer votes” (as though the already vague concept of fairness hasn’t been stretched beyond recognition by the rhetoric of the current government).

This watered down contest might, in part, reflect the political class’ low opinion of the people. Yet more fundamentally, it reflects the nature of the proposals that we are voting on. Unlike the great constitutional reforms of the 19th and early 20th century, and in contrast to proportional representation, there has never been any desire outside parliament for the Alternative Vote. The proposals emerged almost wholly from the Westminster village. And this is because they  do not represent the application of an clear principles to our political system. A system that equates  the first preferences of some with the least objectionable options of others, and which – on a fairly arbitrary basis – counts the second preferences of some but not others, cannot, unproblematically, wrap itself in the flag of democracy.

Equally the temptation to see AV as a stepping stone to a genuinely proportional system is misplaced. As Andy Newman explains, the AV system is best seen as a variant of of First Past the Post. As Jim Jepps, of the Daily Maybe put it to me, one of the underlying principles of Proportional Representation is that minority opinions ought to be represented in parliament. AV in fact does the polar opposite, ensuring that nobody can be represented unless they win over 50% support in a given constituency.

Indeed, it is difficult to see what great criteria AV meets, aside from introducing a bias towards moderates – who are most likely to be people’s least bad option –  and therefore making the electoral system more amenable to the Lib Dems. At the same time,  FPTP, a residue of the pre-democratic age, remains fairly indefensible in contemporary political language.

So expect to see more of the rubbish, more arguments about how much money reform will cost, more references to the expenses scandal, more shallow and patronising rhetoric about how “tribal” and dinosaur-like the opponents of AV are. But just remember, it’s not because the people are stupid. It’s because the proposals before us fundamentally miss the point.

Like this article? Print it, email it, Stumble, Facebook and Tweet it:
  • Print
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Live
Share

Reader Comments

AdamP

I would suggest that the watered down language of the ‘Yes’ campaign reflects the fact that they would prefer to have proportional representation, but in the absence of that have had to settle for a system that in many respects, as you’ve pointed out, is not even an improvement on FPTP.

However, getting people used to discussing and deciding on our voting system is an important step in itself, and if the discussion leads to more people realising the dreadful flaws in both the undemocratic systems on offer, it is not inconceivable that this will allow future governments to offer a form of Proportional Representation, and a public to vote for it.

Though personally I think the Canadian idea of a citizen’s assembly is the only really democratic way to go about it (see http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/inaction for an idea of what I’m talking about). Shame our ruling elite would never contemplate a genuinely democratic way of looking at the choices available.

#1 
Written By AdamP on February 19th, 2011 @ 11:29 am
Jamie

That’s all well and good, but the real issue is pubs not having beer gardens. Right?

#2 
Written By Jamie on February 19th, 2011 @ 12:06 pm
Reuben

Yes Jamie, because what issues we choose to write about over a given week is purely a function of what we deem most important.

#3 
Written By Reuben on February 19th, 2011 @ 1:20 pm

I live in a corner of the States where we have had AV for some years. Mostly it has very little effect on outcomes. The candidate who was ahead in the first round gradually climbs over 50 percent when lower placed candidates are eliminated and their votes reallocated.

We have however had one really surprising outcome due to AV recently. One political insider candidate was so repulsive that his opponents ran a successful “anyone but Don” campaign, held him under 50 percent and managed to elect a woman who started out 10 points behind.

It would seem to me that AV would undermine the whole principle of parties that stand for something. Of course we have plenty of that over here.

#4 
Written By janinsanfran on February 20th, 2011 @ 7:08 am

Add a Comment

required, use real name
required, will not be published
optional, your blog address

Please leave these two fields as-is:

Protected by Invisible Defender. Showed 403 to 442,073 bad guys.