The Alternative Vote
Posted by Kerry McCarthy, MP for Bristol East, at 19:04, Mon 8 March 2010:
A part of the proposals to restore peoples trust in politics, the Prime Minister wanted to go further with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill so the Government introduced an amendment the Bill to legislate for a referendum on electoral reform. Under Labour, this would be held by 2011 at the latest.
The amendment was approved by MPs and the Bill has now passed to the House of Lords. If approved, our amendment will allow for a referendum to be held after the general election on replacing our current First Past the Post (FPTP) system with the Alternative Vote (AV).
The Labour Government has introduced some fundamental constitutional reforms over the past 13 years, and we have more recently been looking at the House of Commons, at how we can restore faith in your elected representatives and how we can re-balance the relationship between government and the people by distributing more power to individuals and communities. A key part of these discussions must be considering how the public elect us to be your representatives.
How AV Works
Voters rank all the candidates in preference order; if no candidate receives 50% of the first preference votes, the candidate with the fewest is eliminated and their second preferences allocated. This process continues until one candidate has the support of at least half of the people voting in their constituency. This means that no-one can be elected without the support of 50% of their constituents.
You can find out about the other measures in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill and follow its progress on Parliament’s website at http://tinyurl.com/yk62yzy.
I voted in favour of holding a referendum so that the public can decide whether we need a new electoral system. When considering the case for electoral reform, my priority is to make sure we retain the direct MP-constituency link, which AV would do. There are, though, a range of factors to consider, and there has been a lot of public debate in recent months about the electoral system, so I would like to know your views about the possibility of replacing FPTP with AV, and what considerations are important to you.
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by Sam Burch, 20:11, Mon 8 March 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
I am very much in favour of getting rid of the First Past the Post (FPTP) system, as it is so unfair. The Alternative Vote seems a good alternative & I would appreciate the chance to vote on this in a referendum
Posted by Govinda Dickman, 20:44, Mon 8 March 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
Without a None Of The Above option, this voting system is only marginally more democratic than FPTP - A true democracy would include some way for us to express the fact that we don't like ANY of the options, if none of the options were palatable.
Surely what we want is a true picture of voters' feelings? Although it's better than FPTP, even AV could falsely suggest support when in fact what the voting pattern signifies is resigned agreement to select the "best of a bad lot"...
Posted by Alex Butcher, 21:46, Mon 8 March 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
As long as we have party whips, I contend that the alleged "MP-constituency link" that AV claims to maintain from FPTP is virtually meaningless. I'm in favour of larger, city-wide constituencies returning one MP for each of their old constituencies, selected by Single Transferable Vote.
Whilst AV is probably a more democratic system than FPTP, announcing it now and promising a referendum if Labour win a fourth term makes it appear to be a cynical attempt to win votes from potential Lib Dem voters. If the Labour government believed electoral reform was important, why wasn't this on the agenda for any of their previous three terms? It's a bit late to expect cross-party co-operation now.
My suggestions for further democratic improvements would be a 'none of the above' option (causing all parties to reselect new candidates for a repeat election) and a recall mechanism that can be triggered by constituents.
Posted by Rob Telford, 07:22, Tue 9 March 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
I completely agree with Alex Butcher. Why has it taken this long when Labour has been in for 13 years? It was in the 1997 manifesto!
Still, if this referendum happens, it will be a good thing.
None of the above is definitely crucial as well, though.
Posted by Stephen Burch, 09:08, Tue 9 March 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
Why no mention of Proportional Representation? Is this out of favour for some reason (other than it would currently benefit some parties more than others)?
While we're making suggestions: I think making voting mandatory is a good thing (as long as there is the "none of the above" option as mentioned elsewhere).
Posted by Paul Nash, 12:40, Tue 9 March 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
Do Labour see the irony in a FPTP referendum to bring in a AV system? Usual average turnout around 45% so around 23% need to vote in favour for it to be passed, democratic? The only realistic way to do is make it a legal obligation to vote (as in Australia)
Oh well it'll probably go the way of the promised EU referendum all they need to do is change the name from AV to AVA (alternative vote alternative)and it be claimed to be something totally different.
Posted by Paul Nash, 12:44, Tue 9 March 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
Re Stephen Burch
No one has gone down the PR route because we would end up like Italy, worse still the Lib Dems might even get it.
Posted by Alex Butcher, 13:25, Tue 9 March 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
Re Paul Nash
Italy's problems aren't caused by its electoral system. Italy uses the Party List system. Other states which use the same system include Finland, Israel, Netherlands, Russia, Sweden and Venezuela amongst others. "Weak government" is not a label which can be attached to all of those states!
Posted by Govinda Dickman, 13:47, Tue 9 March 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
I suspect that the low turn-out for voting is a symptom of lack of faith in the system itself, which might be mitigated by a NOTA option - the theory here is that no-shows at voting time might simply be unregistered resistance, in effect an attempt to vote "none of the above" that is being misread as apathy.
Therefore, a mandatory vote without the NOTA option would be tantamount to the end of democracy. Indeed, have to say that I'm not sure active citizenship can/should be ever be forced - without a sense of genuine personal investment and belief, the exercise becomes meaningless: more about social control than citizenship.
As for Proportional Representation - I support it, but am concerned at how open to abuse it is in the "the attention economy", where politics is BRANDED, and ideologies are reduced to axioms and soundbites. The tendency to want or at least allow others to do our thinking for us has resulted in a citizenry who don't know HOW to research historical, economic, legal or political discourse. We haven't been prepared by our schooling or our cultural background to think arguments through, and we are vulnerable to emotional appeals and illogical arguments (e.g. BNP domestic policy, which makes no logical, economic, moral or historical sense, but is nonetheless increasingly popular amongst people who have been led to believe it's "in their interest...")
Posted by L. Cozens, 10:20, Fri 12 March 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
Let's face it Labour are promising a referendum on AV? Yeah right! I'll believe that when I see it. They didn't give us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The trouble with referendums is they cost money and as we saw in court yesterday MP's prefer to spend the taxpayers money on themselves and blow the consequences. About AV and politics. Politics should be about what you believe in - we hear politicians say this alot when trying to get their point across. So if it's about belief how can there be an alternative. For me if you're Church of England that's what you believe, if you're Muslim, Hindu, Rastafarian, Sikh, Catholic it's what you believe. So how can a New Labour believer have a alternative vote? For what? Lib Dems? BNP? National Socialist? English Defence League? Conservative??? This is open to abuse and I would worry for the social stablity of our country. Have a real good think about this one guys!!or are they just trying for a Lib Lab pact or hung parliament which would give the country terrible problems for the immediate future - pacts are always a nightmare and it's not what the country needs but it seems to be what the media want? I wonder why?
Posted by Paul Nash, 13:29, Sat 13 March 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
Re Alex Butcher and strong governments
Italys political problems are wholly due to PR. In 94 Berlusconi was elected he lasted a massive 8 months before a vote of no confidence. Over the next 5 years they managed another 2 elections and in 2000 bought back Berlusconi, has lasted 4 years (the longest ever post war Italian Goverment) then we had Prodi again he lasted 2 years and now Berlusconi is back. Berlusconi recently passed a law that said Berlusconi can't be charged with fraud.
Venezuela - Its now no better than a dictatatorship, Hugo Chavez recently changed the law so he can stay as president indefinately.
Russia - Where any party but the main party is banned from national TV and newspapers.
Netherlands - Another PR mess, the main partys have to get in a coalition with bizarre thinking right wing partys such as Pim Fortuyn's. I think you'll also find they have had 3 elections in 5 years, the last failed coalition cabinet was only 2 Months ago.
Israel - More PR madness, as with the UK an election every 4 years, due to coalition madness the average Israeli parliament lasts less than 2 years due to endless votes of no-confidence.
I must say I don't know much about Sweden or Finland.
Posted by Liz Read, 20:49, Sat 13 March 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
I lived in the Netherlands for rather a long time and I want the system they've got. Far from being a mess it's consensus politics. Their MPs don't have to work in the face of other MPs howling like monkeys. They work together and get things done. If it doesn't work they "get divorced" and try again in different groupings. This is reflected in their relative prosperity and the fact the recession is not affecting them nearly as badly as the rest of the world. As one friend said to me on holiday last year "You know, we're Dutch, we're not really having a recession". They are actually noticing this recession as it's so bad worldwide, I was living there for the last one and it passed unnoticed. No jobs lost, no lives ruined. Nice, eh?
We have less stability with our decades-long rule by one party that gradually loses touch with the electorate. We're now in the middle of a 6 month run-up to the election with everyone trying to smear everyone else and politicians who are supposed to be adults behaving in a way none of us would like our children to behave. Dutch elections happen more quickly and are almost dignified in comparison.
They do have a bewildering array of parties, but they see that as a sign of electoral health. You know, free speech. Everyone has a say and everyone can contribute in the measure their views are reflected in the community (democracy). Here we have two flavours of politics and everything else is marginalised. I can't speak for the other countries listed but I lived in the Netherlands for 6 years, can speak Dutch and voted in EU and local council elections there, so I probably know as much about it as anyone on here.
FPTP has to go (we all seem to agree on that, which is interesting), AV a very watered down version of what we need. I thought it had been discredited years ago.
I'd also quite like the Dutch version of the NHS (yes, they have social healthcare too). And before anyone says it, if family considerations didn't keep me here I'd have gone back there long ago.
Posted by Paul Nash, 15:32, Tue 16 March 2010: (Is this post abusive?) #
Re Liz
Thats a very fair and correct point about the Netherlands and yes they do have a broad range of political parties, some sensible and some not so sensible (but thats life). A good friend of mine works for a Dutch company and he's always raving about Dutch politics, even though he does think they have too many compromised decisions where no one is really happy, but heh it went through.
My point (which was badly made) was more about how AV or PR would effect the UK, its easier in Holland because they operate in a relatively small country with relatively small public services. they can have a regular change of government.
Wheras in the UK we have some of the worlds biggest organisations such as the NHS who employ 1.3million people (I believe they are the biggest employer in Europe, the biggest private company I believe is Siemens with around 400k employees).
My problem with AV or PR is that these huge organisations will be used as politcal bargaining chips and face a change of direction with every new parliament (I did a quick bit of wikipedia research the average goverment in countrys with PR is around 2 years). Governments should have 5-10 yr plans for these organisations, not a new 5 year plan every 2 years. I know that in recent years new Labour have used the NHS just like this (my parter used to work for HMRC she reckoned under Labour they had a new 5 year plan sometimes twice a day)
Keep FPTP, make voting a legal obligation and somehow take the NHS and schools out of goverment control (and I don't mean privatise it or give away their assets to private companys)