The first-past-the-post electoral system, congruent with an era of two-party dominance, and enabling clear choices and strong government, has fallen into increasing disrepute.
Since the high noon of two-party politics in 1951, when Labour and the Tories together polled fully 96.8 per cent of the vote, their share has fallen remorselessly, to just 67.6 per cent by 2005.
Turnout has also fallen sharply so that, even more starkly, the two major parties captured 79.2 per cent of the electorate in 1951, but barely half that in 2005 – an embarrassing 41.4 per cent. At the same time, exaggerated majorities have been a feature, very convenient Labour in 1966, 1997 and 2001 but disastrous from 1951 to 1964 and from1979 to 1992.
First-past-the-post is unfair, and the case for electoral reform is strong. But the fatal defect of PR is that power is sucked upwards to regional or national levels of party structures, with the single member constituency, such a cherished feature of British parliamentary democracy, abolished. It is also hugely complex with its own anomalies.
The Liberal Democrat PR favourite, Single Transferable Vote, with on average five MPs in each ‘multi-members seat’, would mean monster constituencies (some covering hundreds of square miles), so breaking the historic link of democratic accountability to the local electorate and preventing voters re-electing or sacking their MP.
List PR systems favour candidates approved by central or at best regional party machines, with local parties losing virtually all influence and candidates often parachuted in, as happens in France. The most proportional PR version of all is in Israel where there is a national list leaving governments in hock to the vagaries of tiny and often extreme parties.
The Additional Member system requires two classes of MPs, some constituency based, the others coming from lists: constitutional ‘free loaders’ without constituency responsibilities or voter accountability. The disreputable behaviour of many list members in Wales and Scotland has hardly been a good advertisement.
Under PR the ordinary voter would have less opportunity to determine the composition of the government because coalitions would become the norm rather than the exception. The political scientist Giovanni Sartori unashamedly argued that this was a good thing because coalitions make it difficult for the electorate to ‘pin down who is responsible for decisions’!
A far better option is the Alternative Vote under which voters are allowed to vote 1,2,3 etc if they wish, with bottom candidates dropping out and their subsequent preference votes allocated to those above until someone wins an overall majority.
The winner has to have more than 50 per cent of voter support; under a third of MPs currently do so. AV retains accountability through the single member seat and produces a better relationship between votes cast and seats won than the existing system.
So, the case for AV is:
• it is much fairer
• the single member seat would be retained
• there is less scope for ‘wasted’ votes as electors can express their first preferences which might encourage turnout
• there would be less geographic bias which sees either Labour or Tories under represented in regions where both still have significant support
• each MP would have to secure at least 50 per cent of the vote
• it is simple – a contrast with the unfathomable complexities and anomalies of PR options
• no boundary changes would be required
• it is also the only option the Commons has ever voted for (in 1931) because MPs are unlikely willingly to vote themselves out of their seats as would certainly be required for PR.
The likely general election outcome is not certain. The evidence suggests Lib Dem second preferences would break pretty evenly in the current political climate, so Tory opponents could not claim it as a pro-Labour device. As the Australian experience shows, the case for the AV is not that it would necessarily favour or disfavour any one party, but that it is a more democratic system.
There is one other important plus: because the AV is an adjustment to the current system, not – like PR – a wholesale change involving the abolition of parliamentary constituencies, there is no case for the referendum rightly promised over PR. Electors would hardly thank parliament for indulging in all the paraphernalia of a referendum which invited them to state whether they wanted to confine their vote to 1 – or have the option of voting 1, 2, 3.
First-past-the-posters in Labour can live with the AV. So can Labour’s fervent PR advocates. The Lib Dems wouldn’t champion it, but they probably wouldn’t oppose it and might even back its parliamentary passage.
Bringing it in would put Labour on the high ground of democratic reform, enabling us to project a politics which is genuinely pluralist and empowering in a way that is not excited by our existing, though worthy, plans.
There is now a window of opportunity for our government to bring about an historic reform before the next election. It may not come around again for a generation or more. It should be seized and legislation introduced in the next parliamentary session.
It is good to see that fair voting for Westminster is at last being talked about by Labour politicians. But why reinvent the wheel? Such a pity that Peter Hain didn’t take a look at the Jenkins proposals. Yes, they do require two classes of MPs, some constituency based, but with the others linked to a small group of local constituencies. For example, Sheffield where there are currently 6 constituencies, would have 5 ordinary constituencies, and then another 1 for the whole of Sheffield.
It would provide a (roughly) proportionate system that AV doesn’t.
Debating which voting method can become such a tortuous and technical matter that it can put people off the idea. There are huge benefits in going for something that has already been through a public consultation process, and where the arguments for were expressed so clearly and elegantly and the arguments against dealt with so powerfully.
When someone else then comes up with their own “pet” method instead of advocating support for what there is already some consensus for, it just muddies the water. And we go round the arguments again instead of making progress. So if we do want to make progress (and we do, don’t we?) please bite the bullet and support Jenkins.
Regards
It is good that Peter Hain understands that there are problems with the present First Past the Post (FPTP) system for House of Commons elections. Unfortunately his proposal for the Alternative Vote (AV) system does not provide the remedy to these problems.
Peter Hain is incorrect in thinking of AV as the remedy because –
1 AV can actually produce a less proportional outcome than FPTP. This is not fairer to voters or parties and does not result in a more representative Commons.
2 Peter Hain suggests that AV will reduce ‘geographic bias which sees either Labour or Tories under represented in regions where both still have significant support.’ It is unlikely that AV will reduce geographic bias and it is also quite likely that AV will actually increase geographic bias.
3 Most voters in general elections are interested in electing a party and/or party leader rather than their local MP. Politicians are conceited if they think that voters are mainly interested in electing their MP.
4 Peter Hain is incorrect in suggesting that AV is a good system because it retains single member constituencies. PR systems reduce the distortions produced by constituency boundaries. There is nothing inherently magical about single member constituencies. In the 19th century multi member parliamentary constituencies existed. Borough Councils have multi member wards. It is good for voters to have a choice of representatives to contact about problems. This is especially true when they have representatives from different parties.
5 Peter Hain’s comment about the ‘unfathomable complexities and anomalies of PR options’ insults the intelligence of most voters. Peter Hain may have a problem with understanding PR systems but I am sure that most voters can understand how PR systems work!
The Alternative Vote system cannot solve the problems with the FPTP system. There is a need for a Proportional Representation system for House of Commons elections.
William S Taylor
NW Make Votes Count Co-ordinator
I also welcome Peter Hain’s positive contribution to the growing level of interest in electoral reform but I similarly endorse the criticisms raised by Vicky Seddon and Bill Taylor.
I suppose it is inevitable that political favouritism should colour the narratives of those with a vested interest in securing electoral advantage from any particular voting system and Peter Hain has not disappointed on that score. I am not restricted by any party political affiliation (and never will be) but I remain passionately concerned with delivering fairness in any election outcome.
Mr. Hain makes the following bold claims for AV:
• it is much fairer
Perhaps it can be fairer but this is not an inherent property of AV because it can also just as easily deliver more distorted results than FPTP (if that were possible)
• the single member seat would be retained
Correct but so what; why is the single member principle sacrosanct?
• there is less scope for ‘wasted’ votes as electors can express their first preferences which might encourage turnout
Also true but other voting systems also exhibit this beneficial feature even more robustly than AV – why settle for half measures?
• there would be less geographic bias which sees either Labour or Tories under represented in regions where both still have significant support
Electoral deserts would still exist under AV but they would be less pronounced. AV does not completely eliminate the concept of marginal seats and so it still tempts political parties to bias their electoral spending accordingly.
• each MP would have to secure at least 50 per cent of the vote
True – AV would (very conveniently for those seeking to legitimise its introduction) result in each elected representative requiring more than 50% active support from a constituency electorate
• it is simple – a contrast with the unfathomable complexities and anomalies of PR options
Glad to see that Mr. Hain endorses preferential (1,2,3,4) voting systems as simple but that property also applies to other intrinsically fairer voting systems
• no boundary changes would be required
Yes but boundaries within a single member representative system are a major flaw and AV would merely perpetuate the malign influence currently exerted by FPTP upon mainstream political party electoral strategies.
If Mr Hain is really looking for a voting system that:
• is fairer (well any system would struggle to surpass FPTP in the unfairness stakes!)
• not only retains but actually strengthens the mythical properties associated with the MP:Electorate constituency link
• allows the vast majority of votes to contribute to the result
• eliminates marginal constituencies completely and thus the potential for electoral deserts
• ensures that every elected MP has received clear endorsement from the electorate
• is simple (you can’t get much easier than 1,2,3,4)
• can be based on existing boundaries merely by combining existing constituencies
and in addition to all of the above beneficial features
• irrevocably tilts the balance of power in favour of voters (individually and collectively) and away from organised political parties
• allows individual voters to censure/endorse candidates whilst simultaneously retaining a capacity to express clear ideological preference
• allows voters to express sophisticated preferences in their choice of elected representatives
• will undoubtedly broaden the political landscape by enabling minor parties to gain a Parliamentary foothold
• excludes extremist parties unless they receive significant (>20%) support from the electorate
and manages to do all of the above whilst still delivering a large degree of proportionality in the overall general election result, then there really is only one choice of system available and that is Multi-Member STV.
Contrary to Mr. Hain’s claim that STV will give us “monster constituencies”, the system can be adapted to utilise current boundaries equivalent to a minimum of three existing Parliamentary constituencies in rural areas and no more than five in relatively compact urban areas.
This would, in many cases, actually deliver more meaningful Parliamentary affinities – for example Edinburgh currently boasts five MP’s. An enlarged five member constituency called simply “Edinburgh” would surely resonate more readily with the residents of that fair city?
I think we are entitled to question Mr. Hain’s motivations in advancing the case for AV. Is it mere coincidence that AV would entrench the domination of the major political parties at the expense of new entrants to the electoral arena – this has certainly been Australia’s experience of AV.
To claim that AV must be pursued because it is the only system MP’s are likely to vote for illustrates the moral bankruptcy of his arguments.
AV is not a solution to the UK’s manifest democratic woes. In fact it could very well make them worse – if the UK is to entertain reform it must be radical and that means proportionality!