I have given a lot of thought to this question and have decided that I do not support a change from First Past The Post (FPTP) to the Alternative Vote. Therefore it is right for me to advise people to vote against this proposed change in the electoral system and to campaign against it. I shall attempt to outline why.
One of the problems of this debate has been the belief that somewhere out there is an electoral system that satisfies all the criticisms of First Past The Post, without any defects of their own. This sadly is not true and I would argue that FPTP, whilst not perfect, is better than the alternative on offer.
At the outset let me confirm that it was Labour’s manifesto commitment to allow the public the opportunity to vote on this; it was not the position that Labour supported the change and in practice Labour MPs have differing views on it. However it will be the public at large who decide.
It is also perhaps worth saying that, whilst its supporters try to brand the possible change as progressive, AV really does not live up to what is claimed for it. It was Nick Clegg who shortly before the General Election labelled it “a miserable little compromise”.
Any worthwhile electoral system should do a number of things. Clearly and importantly it should give sovereignty to the electorate to vote into power and vote out of power individuals, parties and governments. It should deliver governments whose programmes and platforms, competencies and weaknesses have been tested in the electoral process. It should provide a basis for stable government throughout the life of a reasonable Parliament. And, importantly, it should provide a credible opposition capable of challenging the government and making it accountable.
The FPTP system performs better against these tests than AV.
The public were certainly ready for a change of government in 1979 and in 1997 and the election delivered that.
AV would almost certainly have delivered bigger majorities for the then governments in 1983 and 1997 and possibly in other elections. It would certainly have weakened the main opposition party in 1987 and 2001 and 2005. Neither of these effects would have been an improvement. It would have delivered a hung parliament and probably a coalition government in 1992.
The coalition government we have has hardly been a model for political honesty with its programme properly scrutinised. In practice this is far from the case with, for example, the Lib Dem reversal on student fees, with both coalition partners operating an economic policy (cuts), very different from the one they both promised in government and an NHS free market policy which was not in either manifesto. Now you may believe this simply represents parties and personalities operating with enormous political expediency and personal self-interest but I think the nature of coalition building makes this covert process more likely.
In passing AV doesn’t behave significantly more proportionally that FPTP. Small parties are still marginalised. The only party which believes it will gain is the Lib Dem Party. I understand that for Nick Clegg this is worth fighting for but not for the reasons he publicly claims.
In passing again I don’t believe it is especially a note of merit that the person voting successively for candidates who drop off the bottom of successive counts in AV will have their vote counted many times until they get it right whereas the person who votes for the runner-up will vote unsuccessfully and only once. Elections have winners and some people vote for those who lose; that is not a wasted vote.
