Truly my last blog on the arguments for and against AV for Thursday's UK referendum on AV. It's been quite a campaign, but the arguments made by either side are weak or worse. This may get a little better in this last week. In its broadcast tonight the Yes campaign is at long last explaining what the system is and why it is a good idea, and even toning down some of its exaggerated claims. The Yes campaign had left too much of the explaining to its opponents, while spending too much time twittering to to the converted. By contrast the No broadcast seems much more about rallying the converted, especially Labour supporters; it rehashes the usual arguments in quick soundbites, using a variety of politicians and vox pops. Up to this week the No campaign has been much more vigorous, albeit scurrilous.
First, for the benefit of those that haven't decided, and want to get beyond the soundbites, let's have a quick round up of the usual, weaker, arguments before identifying the stronger ones. First the Yes:
- It will make all MPs work harder. The idea is because most MPs will need second preference votes to win, as well as a good haul of first preferences, then they will be more sensitive to people's needs. Well maybe. But they are already trying quite hard for the first preference votes of minor parties.
- Tackles "jobs for life", duck houses, etc. Well it should reduce the number of safe seats - but there will still be plenty left. So some change, but not that much.
- All MPs will need 50% of support. A stronger argument, but of course this is 50% before abstentions. Some voters will not offer second or third preferences so they will drop out, meaning that the winner gets a bit less than 50% of the voters who turned up. The Economist newspaper seems to think this is a big problem, but if voters are indifferent between candidates then surely that's fair enough.
- It's change. True, but is it for the better? Change would certainly rock the older politicos - but this is weak stuff.
- It will keep the Tories out of power forever. Not an argument to persuade Conservative supporters. Frankly, I'm not at all convinced. The Lib Dem vote could implode, the Tories scoop up second preferences from UKIP; if Labour fluffs it that could easily deliver the Tories an outright victory. And if David Cameron succeeds in "de-toxifying" the Tory brand, it's all to play for.
It says much about the Yes campaign that they haven't said much more than this until this week. The Nos, on the other hand have given us a massive battery of arguments:
- It will cost £250m which is best spent on other things. There has been a lot of heat generated by this claim, based on the costs of running the referendum (too late) and buying counting machinery (unnecessary). Still, there will need to be an information campaign to explain the system, and it will take longer to count the votes, which will mean a bit more overtime. Cheaper not to vote at all, of course. What price democracy?
- More countries use FPTP than AV. My Tory leaflet says 2.4 billion to 29.5 million. So? I don't know who they have counted into their 2.4 billion, but a large part of it is India, where there are literacy issues (and which doesn't deliver stable government either). The US has got round many of the weaknesses of FPTP through primary elections (which really are more expensive!) . Many states also use run-off elections which work a bit like AV, and AV itself is not unknown. And for President, if they used FPTP then Al Gore would have beaten George Bush in 2000 - but in fact they use an electoral college system. New Zealand abolished FPTP for proportional representation. That leaves Canada amongst developed countries; that country' electoral experiences are not an advertisement for the system. Today the Conservatives won a general election because the left-wing NDP took votes away from the centre parties. What's more many other nations, including France and Italy, have a single member run-off system that works a bit like AV.
- The Australians don't like AV. My Conservative leaflet claims that 60% of Australians want to go back to FPTP. That isn't what the poll in question actually asked. What many Aussies don't like is that they are forced to preference ALL candidates, even if they are indifferent. We aren't proposing that in the UK. In fact the principle of preferential voting (as they call it) is not controversial there.
- AV gives weight to extreme parties, like the BNP. Extremists will find more difficult to win under AV. But they find it hard enough under FPTP (though George Galloway did sneak in in 2005). But their second preferences will count. Just as they would if there was no candidate of their party at all. This is true, but it's called democracy.
- Soppy centrists will get elected. This is the exact opposite of the extremist argument. It isn't made by the mainstream No campaign, but it is the argument of choice of the magazine Spiked, and Matthew D'Ancona. The idea is that the trawl for second preference votes will put a premium on being unobjectionable. But you still need first preference votes to be in contention, since you will almost always need to be in the top two on first preferences to stand a chance (and this is the Australian experience). Soppy centrists are likely to get knocked out. Besides appealing to the centre is how marginal seats are won under FPTP too.
- There will be permanent hung parliaments and coalitions. This is a valid argument against proportional representation, but not AV. The argument runs that the Lib Dems will get more seats, denying a majority to Labour or Conservatives. You have to believe in a Lib Dem recovery to think that; they will have a real problem to get enough first preference votes to be in contention in enough seats. Even if you accept this, the balance between the top two parties is likely to favour the winner (because they get more second preference votes as well as first preference votes), and this will offset the effect. One academic has suggested that the only election since the war that would have given a hung parliament under AV was last year's, which, um...
- We want PR. AV is not remotely proportional; that's why a lot of people like it. But FPTP isn't either. PR isn't on the menu. The danger is that a No vote will put people off electoral reform of any kind for a long time.
- We've been using FPTP for 300 years and we should stand by our traditions. Well I'm exaggerating, but only slightly, based on Mr Cameron's utterings. One person one vote has only been around in the UK since 1950 when the university seats were abolished. It's not all that long ago when we abolished rotten boroughs. We forget how much our constitution changes and adapts.
Enough. What are the arguments that count? For yes:
- It reduces the chances of rogue candidates splitting the vote and letting the enemy in. This will make it easier for MPs to take an independent line against party managers. Perverse results where people vote for the left and let a right wing candidate in (which seems to have happened in Canada today) are prevented.
- It's more transparent. Today a lot of voters vote for their second preference because they don't think their first has a chance of winning. The importance of first preference votes under AV will not stop this entirely, but it will be a big help. And the winning candidate will know where his or her second preference votes came from. Today they like to claim that all their votes are positive first preference ones - time to expose this.
- It's a majoritarian system, like FPTP. Coalitions only happen when the public really can't make up its mind. Of course many people prefer coalitions...but see above. We aren't turning the political world upside down, just making it a bit better.
And for the Nos:
- There is clearer bond with the voter, who needs to make a binary decision, which then gets counted in a highly dramatic process. There is a little magic in the old ways.
- If No wins then the Conservatives will have to give the Lib Dems a consolation prize, perhaps in Lords reform. If Yes wins then the opposite applies.
And that's enough!