Pimp My Vote!

On 5 May 2011, the nation votes once again in local elections - but this time there's a twist. For the first time ever (as far as I know), we are also being offered a chance to change the system which we use to elect our MPs. Surprisingly, this has been a more difficult choice for me than I had expected - quite possibly because both competing campaigns are fronted by arguably the two most unpopular politicians in the country.



For those of you who don't live in the UK, or have been hiding in Abbottabad for the past year or so, the referendum question is as follows:

At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be used instead?

So, let's have a look at the two alternatives on offer.


First Past The Post ("FPTP")

The current system. You're given a list of candidates, you mark X against your preferred candidate, and the one with the most votes wins.

Under the UK's existing multi-party system, this often means a candidate is elected despite more people voting for other candidates than for the winner.

Alternative Vote ("AV")

The proposed new system. You're given a list of candidates, and you mark 1 2 3 etc in order of preference. (Or, just mark X against one candidate as with FPTP.) If no candidate has an outright majority of first choices, the least popular candidate is eliminated and their votes are redistributed to the other candidates in accordance with the second preferences expressed, and so on until one candidate has a majority.

This system can potentially result in the candidate who gains the most first-preference votes losing the final election due to redistributions of second and third choice votes. A recent examples of this is the election of Ed Miliband as leader of the Labour party.



OK. So far, so straightforward. But this doesn't help me much. I have lived in a variety of constituences in the past, from marginals to safe seats, but my current constituency is generally considered to be a very safe seat for the Conservatives. Of course there are a number of similar seats around the country, where one party (not always the Tories) are effectively elected before a vote is cast. What this often means is that one party can gain a majority of seats in Parliament while polling less than 40% of the nation's vote - in fact this happens in just about every election in my adult lifetime, except the last one.

Take 2001 for example. Under Tony Blair, Labour polled 40.7% of the votes, but won 62.6% of seats in Parliament. Surely, even for a die-hard Labour supporter, this can't be right. 60% of the country doesn't want you, but you've still got a strong working majority. Much the same could be said in Canada today, where the Conservatives won a crushing majority with a minority of the votes cast.

The problem with the FPTP system is that the parties tend to concentrate on the swing voters in the marginal seats, as a tiny change in voting share can make a huge change in representation in Parliament. Meanwhile, voters in the majority of constituencies where the result is pretty much obvious, are effectively ignored. This is the position I face in my constituency - basically, whoever I vote for (even if it's the Conservative candidate), my vote is wasted. FPTP doesn't really work if there are more than two parties - it's fine for Americans, but not for us.

So it seems to me that a change is required, but is AV the right one? I need to look at the arguments put forward by both sides, to see if that can help me decide whether AV would be a better, fairer and more representative system or not. If not, then should I vote to retain FPTP?

The following summaries of the arguments are as presented by The Guardian newspaper. I realise that paper doubtless has an editorial slant one way or the other, but the following summary at least looks to be factual and balanced. Whether their op-ed pieces are, is another argument.


The Yes campaign

The Yes campaign is supported by the Liberal Democrats and Greens, as well as the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties, and some Republican parties in Northern Ireland. The Labour party are split both ways.



Supporters of a switch to AV say:

• The aim of securing more than 50% of the local vote would ensure MPs work harder to earn and keep voter support. Two-thirds of MPs at the last election were elected on less than a 50% share of the vote.

• It would end the "jobs for life" culture in safe constituency seats (campaigners point to MPs in safe seats who were embroiled in the expenses scandal that hit the previous parliament).

• It would encourage more people to vote, because voters would feel that their say matters more. Campaigners say many are deterred from participating because under first past the post because they feel their vote is wasted.

• AV is moving with the times: two-party dominance has made way for a more pluralist system (notably in devolved Scotland and Wales).

• It eliminates the need for tactical voting. Electors can vote for their first-choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote.

• A switch to AV would not mean changing the current MP-constituency link.

• Supporters say the system would make it more difficult for extremist parties to win an election, because they would be unlikely to secure many second or third preference votes.

• It encourages candidates to chase second and third preferences, which lessens the attractions of negative campaigning (one doesn't want to alienate the supporters of another candidate whose second preferences one wants) and rewards broad church policies.


The No campaign

The No campaign is supported by the Conservatives, as well as the BNP, and some Loyalist parties in Northern Ireland. The Labour party are split both ways.



Those against AV argue:

• First past the post is the fairest system because it is based on the principle of one person, one vote. AV is a "losers' charter" where the candidate who comes second or third in first preferences can actually be elected.

• Some votes will count more than others: If a voter gives their first preference vote to a mainstream party, their other preferences may not be counted. But if they vote for a fringe party candidate who gets knocked out, their other preferences will count.

• AV is a "politicians' fix" because, instead of the voters choosing the government, it would lead to more hung parliaments and backroom coalition deals.

Critics counter that the current coalition was a result of first past the post and that AV is unlikely to lead to more coalitions because it is not PR.

• AV makes decisive electoral outcomes less likely (critics again point to the 2010 election, which led to an inconclusive win for the Conservatives under first past the post).

• Switching to a new voting system would cost £250m.

• It takes longer to count.

• AV will do little to improve under-represented groups, such as the Greens, in parliament.



Both very persuasive in their own way, I'm sure. But this doesn't really help me, as neither is entirely satisfactory. How can I decide?

Some people will vote along party lines - so natural Tories will probably vote No, regardless of their views. This might be a tough call for Labour supporters however, and either way it is again no help for me. I am not allied to any one party over another, and don't see why my views should be dictated by them even if I was. Similarly, some will vote according to their opinions of the two chaps pictured above, but this doesn't really work either, as the system will outlive either of their political careers - at least one of which looks to be in its final stages already.

So, I turn to the campaigns. What are the Yes and No camps saying to persuade us? Let's have a look.

The Yes campaign appear to be focusing on the general perception that the current political system is unrepresentative, and taking advantage of the fact that politicians are even less popular than normal these days.



The No campaign appear to be focusing on the current backlash against LibDem leader Nick Clegg, who is fronting the Yes campaign.



I'm not impressed by negative campaigning. And I've already pointed out that I won't vote based on politicians I dislike. This is about an electoral system, not personalities. So I dig a little deeper, and go to the respective campaigns' websites for more.


The Yes campaign's website links to a brochure released by the Electoral Reform Society: "Why AV?" It's only three pages long, including the title page.

Of the six reasons they give to vote Yes, one appeals in particular - the fact that candidates now need to appeal to more voters, in order to get their second and third choices, if they want to get to the 50% mark. This can only be a good thing. Instead of polling 34% and relying on a split opposition, candidates must now appeal to as many voters as possible.

On the other hand, their sixth reason (clearly they were struggling at this stage) is specious at best. "When parties need to win the goodwill of as many voters as possible, they lack the incentive to create imaginary differences or to focus on negative campaigning." Rubbish. No electoral system on earth will discourage negative campaigning, not least because it works.

The No campaign's website lists just three reasons. The first is that "AV is costly", and claims that it will cost £250 million to transition. A very quick bit of fact-checking proves this to be false, or at the very least misleading. The amount quoted includes the cost of the referendum - which will be the same whoever wins - and also assumes voting machines will be required. This is not the case in any country that currently uses AV.

The No campaign's second reason is that "AV is complex and unfair". I doubt anyone who can list a short number of choices in order of preference would consider AV to be "complex", but is it "unfair"? Their only stated support for this claim is that only three countries use AV. Popularity doesn't mean fairness though, so this looks to be an empty claim.

Finally, the No campaign claim that AV will lead to more hung parliaments - despite the current hung parliament being achieved under FPTP. Again, a quick look at Australia's election results proves this not to be the case.

As Channel 4 News' excellent FactCheck blog shows, both sides are making more false claims than accurate ones. So I can't even believe them.

What if the Australians (and Fijians and Papuans) are all fools? What if, as Baroness Warsi claims, the extremists will get in under AV? What should I do? Who can I believe? One last chance to make my mind up... let's have another look at those summary points the Guardian helpfully provided.


Supporters of a switch to AV say:

• The aim of securing more than 50% of the local vote would ensure MPs work harder to earn and keep voter support. Two-thirds of MPs at the last election were elected on less than a 50% share of the vote.

Sounds good to me, but what if someone gets 49% and isn't elected? The chances of that happening are small, but it could happen.

• It would end the "jobs for life" culture in safe constituency seats (campaigners point to MPs in safe seats who were embroiled in the expenses scandal that hit the previous parliament).

I doubt this. It wasn't large majorities that caused the expenses scandal, it was the laissez-faire attitude to expenses fraud. Most of the worst offenders were long-serving MPs, but many with large majorities were honest.

• It would encourage more people to vote, because voters would feel that their say matters more. Campaigners say many are deterred from participating because under first past the post because they feel their vote is wasted.

Impossible to prove. In my opinion, the difference in turnout would be minimal.

• AV is moving with the times: two-party dominance has made way for a more pluralist system (notably in devolved Scotland and Wales).

True, the devolved nations have moved to AV. But they tend to end up with hung parliaments, just as the No campaign warn. Of course, this may not necessarily be a bad thing...

• It eliminates the need for tactical voting. Electors can vote for their first-choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote.

True, and a good one. Many times I've voted on the basis of "who is most likely to beat X?" rather than "whose policies are best?" Anything that moves from this to a more positively-inspired vote must be good, and it would hopefully end the situation where (for example) 65% of a constituency hate Labour, but their votes are split between other parties and Labour still get in.

• A switch to AV would not mean changing the current MP-constituency link.

True. So it's the same as FPTP in this aspect.

• Supporters say the system would make it more difficult for extremist parties to win an election, because they would be unlikely to secure many second or third preference votes.

This goes against what Baroness Warsi said. But it's telling to see that the BNP support the No campaign.

• It encourages candidates to chase second and third preferences, which lessens the attractions of negative campaigning (one doesn't want to alienate the supporters of another candidate whose second preferences one wants) and rewards broad church policies.

For me, the best reason so far. I'm fed up with my seat being so safe that not one party - not even the winning party - bothers trying to canvass my vote.


Those against AV argue:

• First past the post is the fairest system because it is based on the principle of one person, one vote. AV is a "losers' charter" where the candidate who comes second or third in first preferences can actually be elected.

Hm. Doesn't sound good, does it. These second preferences can be pesky. Here's an example of what happens, albeit not under AV but under a similar system. Scary eh.

• Some votes will count more than others: If a voter gives their first preference vote to a mainstream party, their other preferences may not be counted. But if they vote for a fringe party candidate who gets knocked out, their other preferences will count.

Not true. Everyone gets one vote, and one only. Say you go to the pub and ask for Guinness, but the Guinness is off. You opt for lager instead. You still only get one drink. Yes, if you vote for a 'fringe' party your second or third preference is likely to count more than your first, but surely this is a good thing. It allows smaller interest parties a chance to get a vote, even if they don't win the election. And yes, this can include extremists, but this is a democracy.

• AV is a "politicians' fix" because, instead of the voters choosing the government, it would lead to more hung parliaments and backroom coalition deals.

Coming from a coalition government, this is an odd argument. The last Australian hung parliament was in 1940 (when the UK also had a coalition). Since then, only one of 27 elections has resulted in a hung parliament - compared to 3 out of 28 in the UK under FPTP. Bad argument there, I think.

• AV makes decisive electoral outcomes less likely (critics again point to the 2010 election, which led to an inconclusive win for the Conservatives under first past the post).

See above. Not true.

• Switching to a new voting system would cost £250m.

Disproved. Scaremongering is most unedifying.

• It takes longer to count.

If it's worth it, then surely a little wait isn't a problem? India takes weeks to count their votes. So what?

• AV will do little to improve under-represented groups, such as the Greens, in parliament.

The Greens appear to disagree.



So. Time to decide. In the end I need to combine all the methods of decision-making to reach my choice.

Who do I dislike most? That's easy - the BNP.

Who do I support? Nobody right now.

Who has made the best argument? Neither, but Yes just shades it, mostly because the majority of No arguments are either irrelevant, or easily disproved.

Anything else? Yes. I don't like children.



That, in the end, is why I'm voting Yes. Because anyone who stoops that low doesn't deserve my vote. Or, perhaps, because I want to see babies die.