Whither AV

Some twenty years ago, I wrote several articles and addressed meetings on behalf of the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform. At the time Labour was on its way to losing its 4th General Election in a row, and many activists were questioning whether Labour could ever obtain a working majority again.

Of course Labour reinvented itself as New Labour and electoral reform fell off the radar, or did it ? The Labour government opened Pandora's box when alternatives to FPTP were introduced for devolved assemblies, the European Parliament and the London Assembly. That said when it came to the House of Commons FPTP was not negotiable, regardless of what was said in the Jenkins Report which favoured AV plus.

Constitutional Change was most definitely put on the back burner by Blair after his reelection in 2001, however it began to revive itself once Brown became Prime Minister in 2007. However not surprisingly having been promised a referendum on electoral reform in 1997 why would anyone have held their breathe when the proposal surfaced again in the 2010 manifesto.

Throughout history the Conservatives have opposed any shift away from FPTP. Parties contest elections because they want to put their ideology into action, they seek political power and the Conservatives know that FPTP has served them well. No wonder that Cameron will campaign against change in any referendum campaign.

The Liberal Democrats are usually seen as the party that favours electoral reform. No one should be surprised as the plurality system penalises smaller parties especially those whose vote is thinly spread around the country. Whether the Liberal Democrats would have advocated change so forcefully if they were one of the two major parties is an interesting hypothetical point.

Nevertheless the Lib Dems have in the past supported proportional systems ( in particular STV), now they are being asked cunningly by Cameron to stake all in a campaign to introduce AV which is anything but proportional. Would AV lead to more Lib Dem MPs, it should be remembered that the referendum is to be coupled with the proposal to cut the number of constituencies to 600 .

AV is a majoritrian system that requires the voter that list candidates in order of preference if no candidate obtains more than 50% of the vote, the candidate with the lowest number of 1st preference votes is eliminated and their voters are redistributed according to the 2nd preferences. This procedure continues until a candidate reaches the necessary 50% plus 1 , which of course most occur when only 2 candidates remain.

The advantages of this system is that it keeps the MP-Constituency link , although this can easily be over stressed : I live in a safe Conservative seat, how often do I call on the services of Eric Pickles ! The disadvantages are that it hands the result over to the second choice votes of failed candidates. It has sometimes been argued that in an election where there are three candidates the main beneficiary would be the Lib Dems, this analysis rests on the assumption that Labour voters would give the Lib Dems their second preference votes and similarly the Conservatives. Of course if the Lib Dems came third in a constituency they would be eliminated and their voters second preference votes would determine the outcome.

Today only a minority of MPs can hope to secure more than 50% of the vote. This prospect recedes as Britain moves to be a legitimate multi party system. Therefore most seats under a AV system will be secured on the basis of vote transference. Faced with a referendum on what is clearly a system with almost as many flaws as FPTP, what should the attitude of the Green Party and other small parties be ?

The campaign will suggest that you are either for the status quo or support change ( defined as AV). Labour it seems will campaign against, on the basis that the plan to reduce the number of constituencies to 600 amounts to gerrymandering. For small parties the key question is will AV result in more candidates being elected than under FPTP ? For the Greens who secured their 1st seat under FPTP in 2010, tactical questions need to be resolved. Could the Party retain Brighton Pavilion under AV. What hope is there that other seats could be won ?

Let's assume that the votes of eliminated far right candidates would finish in the Tory column, but what if a Labour candidate was eliminated or a disillusioned Liberal Democrat. Of course the key to success is surviving long enough in the race to benefit from vote transference. It doesn't take long to realise that AV in particular and majoritarian systems in general weren't invented to benefit small parties with thinly spread vote.

In truth only list systems (perhaps operating at regional level) or the Additional Member System offer short term hope of further electoral success.

Is this referendum a once in a lifetime chance ? If AV replaces FPTP, could PR be introduced at a later date ? At present there are many questions that need consideration. Strange however the referendum may well throw up a situation where British has only its second national referendum to consider introducing an electoral system that in truth no party really wants.