Chiltern Green Party

The AV stitch-up

A change to the voting system is essential if we are to achieve democratically any of the changes we Greens see as so vital to our future. Plain AV is not without merits and we should make sure we vote for it on 5^th May. From Nick Wilkins, Chiltern Green Party spokesperson.

Nick Clegg allegedly describes the offer of a vote on AV as a "miserable little compromise". He has since distanced himself from these comments (along with a few other choice pre-election pledges). Nevertheless, calling the offer a "miserable little compromise" Is itself a miserable-little-compromise of a comment:- this vote is nothing short of a stitch-up.

Most people who want a change in the voting system want some form of proportional representation, and that option is entirely missing from the vote on May 5th. But offering a democratic choice is sadly absent from the calculations of our political masters, intent on preserving a system that gives them the maximum opportunity to govern with the minimum accountability.

Well, here's a surprise...

So it beggars belief that some in the "no" camp are arguing that AV is the system that "nobody really wants" when we have been cynically denied any other alternatives. But should this vote fail, they won't just be saying that AV was rejected. They will claim the country "rejected a change to the current system!"

Democracy and counting

Democracy is very much the issue here, but it would be wrong to conflate democracy and vote-counting for that is to mistake the means for the ends. The notion of "democracy" that I believe we should aspire to is that of the Gettysburg address: "government for the people by the people". That is to say a government we all take responsibility for and one that strives to meet the needs of all its constituents, including minority groups.

The way in which we purport to implement democracy in this country is through a representative parliament. In this way we delegate the responsibility for government to people we believe are competent and able to act on our behalf. But "representative" is what our current Parliament so clearly isn't, lamentably failing through the constitution of its members to represent views of the electorate at large.

An end to tactical voting

But let's be clear of one thing: a "yes" vote for AV won't change that. What it will change is that it will eliminate at a stroke the blight of tactical voting, Tactical voting distorts the results of election such that you can no longer tell with any certainty whether votes are "positive" (supporting a party's programme) or "negative" (rejecting some other candidate's party's programme by voting for their main opponent). This consequently muddies the water in terms of the ability of a government to claims to a mandate from the people in respect of anything they do.

The "tactics" do not only influence people's behaviour at the polls they can also affect the choices put before the electorate. Under First Past The Post having two candidates standing on similar platforms is a sure-fire way to ensure neither succeeds, so often a "deal" is done beforehand. Such "deals" undermine voter choice and stifle new thinking.

There have been a number of occasions where the Chiltern Greens have been approached by other parties where we have stood in marginal wards asking that we withdraw on their behalf. (We always politely decline, of course, since we feel our political identity is quite distinct from all the other parties that contest UK elections). With AV, people can vote for their preferences, pure and simple, safe in the knowledge that if a candidate they choose has insufficient support from the electorate they will continue to have a say in selecting a candidate from a reduced field.

A vicious cycle

This change can be enormously important to younger parties because of the existence of "multiplier" effects within the current system that makes it disproportionately difficult for us to make a breakthrough. At the last election, for instance, we were not invited to take part in the leaders' debates on television. The rationale for this is that we are not sufficiently well supported. But our absence from the platform then perpetuates the idea that we are not significant participants in the election, which then manifests itself in miserable results for the Greens outside of their target constituencies. We are then penalised through the deposit system which means we have even less funds to put our message across, and so the cycle goes on. But the real support for the Greens in this region is much closer to the 11% we achieved at the last European election where the voting system offered a much greater assurance of achieving representation. And our membership continues to rise.

Active citizenship denied

Our MP purports to represent us, but the reality is that she is answerable to the party whip and when that is at odds with our thinking we are effectively blocked from having any influence over the government of this country. And that is the same in the large number of safe seats throughout the country. Only if there is a realistic chance of unseating an MP can citizens exert any influence on their sitting MP. How does this system encourage people to be active citizens in government (the "government by the people" bit)? Does it not simply contribute to the general disillusionment that people have with politicians that reached an all-time low during the expenses scandal?

So it is laughable that Cheryl Gillan is reported to oppose AV because she feels it important that governments can be kicked out. This from an MP in a constituency where, to recycle an old conjecture, were Sooty to stand with a blue rosette he would get elected under the current system!

Support the principle not the outcome

The other obnoxious card that is getting waved around irresponsibly at this election is the BNP. The "No" campaign believe that AV will be likelier to result in a BNP candidate elected, a view not shared by the BNP themselves. Nor is it particularly intuitive to imagine that from a position of widespread mistrust the 50% AV threshold would be easier to achieve than the lower and variable thresholds required to win First Past The Post elections.

But I would like to think we will not be deciding this election on how it would benefit this or that party but on the principles involved. The problem with the BNP is not about their entitlement to stand on an anti-immigration platform and to pursue that end by peaceful democratic means. People fear, however, that the BNP's intent is to subvert the democratic process by creating a respectable front for a racist agenda supported by tactics of intimidation and violence. Whether this allegation has any substance is a separate issue from the rights and wrongs of the voting system we choose. But it would be wholly wrong of us to allow our choices to be influenced by any group we considered disdainful of the democratic process. Full PR would undoubtedly lead to BNP representation in Parliament, but would also call bluff on that party to reveal what kind of organisation it intends to be. There's a phrase involving tents and passing water that springs to mind in this regard.

The debate we have been denied

But there is a serious debate here that we could be having where outcome, in the general sense, is pitted against the merits of a representative parliament. It's the debate that argues that it is more important that we elect a Parliament that facilitates one-party government (considered to be "strong") rather than one that represents the voting preferences of the country. It's a debate I would be happy to engage in but given that PR is not at stake it is largely a red-herring in terms of this vote. I personally very much doubt that the combination of changed constituencies, a smaller number of MPs and AV (the only "change" package on offer) means that the days when one party wins an overall majority are numbered.

However, it is entirely possible that once people start to appreciate the greater opportunity that AV offers to overturn their sitting MP that this will accelerate the trend away from election outcomes resulting in majority rule by either Labour or Conservative. So it's reasonable for the "no" camp to argue the merits of the democracy being effectively limited to a choice of two parties with working majorities of their own.

Sadly, though, they have foregone the opportunity for intelligent argument judging by the odious leaflet that came through my door and, no doubt, yours. It is "odious" because so many of the arguments it advances just don't stack up. Either the writers of this really don't understand the issues well enough or they are simply knowingly misleading the public. But in case anyone is in any doubt, the remainder of this paper is dedicated to refuting some of the arguments that this leaflet puts forward, as well as some others that I have heard offered.

AV does not "lead to broken promises"

It is sadly not a rarity for manifesto commitments not to be honoured even by parties achieving overall majorities. I have expressed my scepticism over whether AV will necessarily lead to a significant increase in balanced parliaments, however, let us accept that the argument for now that it will and that coalitions will be more likely under it. In these circumstances it is true that parties will have to negotiate the terms of their engagement in these agreements. Electors' response to this ought to be to demand pre-election that parties distinguish their core promises (not negotiable) from others that are may go into the "pot" of the coalition agreement. And I believe that AV allows us to be more severe on those MPs and parties who renege on manifesto commitments who will clearly not be worthy of our second or subsequent preferences at future polls.

Coalition government is not the only workable outcome of balanced parliaments. Members could vote on an issue by issue basis, consulting more regularly with their constituencies when doing so. The only discipline required to ensure workable government is to agree a budget and for members to accept the constraints on their subsequent voting behaviour that their budget vote demands.

It is not true that "the only vote that would count under AV would be Nick Clegg's"

Governments in this country are elected by a handful of voters in key constituencies. AV increases the importance of everyone's vote because the 50% threshold is harder to achieve. Minority parties will have a greater say in balanced parliaments, but that is a change from no influence to some influence not to total control!

The winner under AV is still the candidate who comes first

The "no" campaign's leaflet features a running analogy that is completely question-begging. Ironically there is no "post" in First Past The Post in that the percentages required to win are variable. The question-begging bit, therefore, is showing a winner's tape in the picture since the whole argument is over what should constitutes the completion of voting (or where the winning post is in the running analogy). If you take a snapshot half way through a race and point out that the runner that's in third place at the time turns out to be the eventual winner, then this should surprise no-one.

AV does not mean the end to "equal votes"

It is simply not true that people who vote for less well-supported parties have their votes counted more than people than people voting for better-supported ones. AV consists of a series of elimination ballots, similar to those conducted on X-factor or Strictly Come Dancing. In each round every vote is counted the same whether it has been transferred or not.

Outcomes are not decided by BNP votes

This is a similar fallacy to the above in that it relies on the assertion that these votes are counted "again and again and again" (to quote the leaflet) as if the other votes are not. Also the phrase "BNP votes" suggests that these votes are the property of the BNP rather than the democratic entitlement of electors.

The cost of AV is £250 million

This quoted costs include the cost of even offering a referendum on the issue. The majority of the remaining costs assume that electronic voting machines would be required, which they would not.

AV is no less transparent than some other First Past The Post elections

Having witnessed the counts at AV ballots in the past and comparing them with the counts at council elections where there are multi-member wards, I do not believe an AV count is any harder to follow. Papers of the eliminated candidate are redistributed in just the same way as they were counted for first time around. In the third round (if it gets that far) there is a slight complication in that the numbered preference of each of the redistributed votes is not always the same. The scrutiny required is not any more demanding than when witnessing multi-member ward counts when often different counting methods are used by the counters and this is not always effectively communicated to the witnesses.

Conclusion

Nearly all progressive change in society and human understanding has come from the influence of people who were thought of as radicals in their day, be they a Darwin, a Pankhurst or a Schumacher. Our stagnant voting system stifles innovation and fresh thinking. A change to the voting system is essential if we are to achieve democratically any of the changes we Greens see as so vital to our future.

PR should have been on offer in this referendum, but we can still campaign for this later (maybe by campaigning to add the "+" and adopting "AV+" proposals of the 1998 Jenkins commission). Plain AV is not without merits and we should make sure we vote for it on 5th May.

Nick Wilkins

Page 1 of 5  > >>