How I'm voting in the referendum, part 2

by Ed Bowsher on 02 May 2011  |  53 comments
Tweet

Read how Ed Bowsher plans to vote in the referendum.

In part one, I explained how the Alternative Vote (AV) works. Now I’m going to explain why I’m going to vote ‘yes.’

AV isn’t a perfect system but I think it’s a lot better than the current set-up. That’s because it makes it easier for voters to express their view and vote ‘honestly.’ It also encourages politicians to reach out and broaden their appeal.

An honest vote

Let’s imagine that you’re strongly opposed to UK membership of the EU. You’ve supported the Tories in the past but you think that David Cameron has failed to stand up for Britain’s interests in Brussels.

As a result, you’re now very tempted to vote for UKIP under first-past-the-post. However, the danger is that a vote for UKIP could prove to be a ‘wasted vote.’  If you lived in a Tory/Lib Dem marginal, your vote for UKIP could help the Lib Dems beat the Tories, and then you’d be represented by the most pro-European party in UK politics!

So you’re in a bit of a dilemma. Do you vote honestly for UKIP, your true favourite? Or do you hold your nose and vote Tory in order to keep the Lib Dems out?

If we had AV, your decision would be much easier. You could vote UKIP as your first preference, and then select the Tories as your second preference. With AV, we might find that support for UKIP was stronger than many people had realised as Eurosceptic voters could, for the first time, clearly express their true opinion whilst still doing everything they could to hurt the Lib Dems and/or Labour.

And it’s not just staunch eurosceptics who could benefit from AV. A Green supporter could put a ‘1’ by the Green candidate and then pick one of the three major parties as their second preference. In Tory/Labour marginals, Lib Dem supporters could still vote Lib Dem and then use their second preference to back Labour or Conservative.

A broader appeal

The other big plus point for AV is that MPs will no longer be elected with support from as little as 35% of the electorate. Politicians and parties will have to reach out beyond their natural bases in order to win second preferences in marginal seats.

I’m not suggesting that AV will cure all of first-past-the-post’s flaws. Under the current system, Labour doesn’t have many seats south of Watford while the Conservatives have only one MP in Scotland. I think that’s a bad thing because it means that Labour southerners and Tory Scots have very little representation in Westminster. Sadly, this will continue under AV.

I should also stress that AV isn’t proportional.  At the last general election, the Tories won 36% of the votes and 46% of seats while Labour won 29% of the votes and got 39% of the seats. We could see similar results under AV. We almost certainly won’t have elections where one party wins 36% of the votes and then gets 36% of the seats. AV will most likely produce modest changes in the number of seats won by the major parties. Nothing too dramatic. 

Let's look at some simulated election results from the Political Studies Association. (The results combined actual votes with opinion poll data for voters’ second preferences.)

1992

Under AV, the Conservatives still win but with a smaller majority.

1997

Under AV, Labour wins with an even bigger majority

2001

Under AV, Labour wins with an even bigger majority.

2005

Under AV, Labour wins with a bigger majority.

2010

Under AV, there's still a hung parliament but the Lib Dems gain more seats.

You can see from these results that Tony Blair would have done even better under AV than under the current system. I think that's because AV more accurately reflects the depth of anti-Tory feeling at the time. Those results show that AV probably won't produce hung parliaments every election.

That said, the Liberal Democrats would have received modest boosts every time from AV, most importantly in 2010. 32 extra seats in 2010 could have given the Lib Dems some extra firepower in the coalition negotiations.

Theory and reality

Of course, the results of future elections may be very different from the landslides of recent times. Regardless of the electoral system, some commentators think that hung parliaments are more likely after future elections as tribal loyalty to the two major parties continues to ebb away.

What’s more, the introduction of a new electoral system may change voting behaviour somewhat. On top of that, some voters may be keen to punish the Liberal Democrats for their volte face on student fees.

On the other hand, the Lib Dems may benefit from the fact that they'll be many peoples' second choice. (Your typical Labour voter will be more likely to use their second preference for the Lib Dems than the Tories.) My best guess is that we’ll see more hung parliaments and the Lib Dems will get a modest boost from the election after next onwards. But it’s impossible to be certain.

One thing I am certain about is that the BNP won’t benefit from AV. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Under first-past-the-post, the BNP could squeeze through and win a seat on 30% of the vote. But if they want to win under AV, they’ll need to get support from 50% of the constituency electorate. No wonder the BNP is campaigning to retain the current system.

I’m very happy to be on the other side of the argument from the BNP. I’m aware of AV’s flaws – I’d much prefer a more proportional system such as the Single Transferable Vote.  But given the choice on the referendum ballot paper, I’ll vote for a system which gives the voter the power to do more than just pick one party. I think AV is the more democratic system and that’s why I’m backing it.

Update:  I've answered some of the points made in the comments below in a further blog post: All votes are equal!