The No2AV group, which will be calling for a 'No' vote in the coming referendum on the voting system, has just launched its campaign. So what should we make of their arguments? Alan Renwick, expert on electoral systems, and author of A Citizen's Guide to Electoral Reform, takes a dispassionate look...
The No2AV campaign, we discovered this week, will be concentrating their critique of the Alternative Vote (AV) voting system upon three key points. As citizens and potential referendum voters, we need to know whether their arguments stack up or not. So let’s examine each of them in turn.
Their first claim is that AV “makes elections unfair”. “AV breaks the principle of one person one vote”, they argue, “because supporters of fringe parties end up having their vote counted several times while supporters of mainstream parties only have their vote counted once”.
This is not a good start. The claim that they are making here is entirely false. A quick run through the mechanics of AV will explain the confusion.
Voters under AV can rank the local candidates in order of preference. The first stage of the count looks only at the first preferences. If one candidate has more than half of these first preferences, that candidate is elected and the count is over. If no one gets more than half the first preferences, however, the bottom candidate is excluded and the votes of this candidate’s supporters are transferred according to their second preferences and added to the totals of the remaining candidates. This continues until a candidate passes 50 per cent or until only two candidates are left in the race.
The process of transferring votes might make it look as though voters for fringe parties – who are excluded first – get multiple votes. But they don’t. At every stage of the count, each voter’s ballot is counted once and once only. If your favourite candidate is still in the race, then your vote will still be counted for that candidate. If your favourite has dropped out, you vote will count for your second favourite. No one’s vote counts more than anyone else’s.
The second argument proffered by No2AV is that “AV is a politician's fix, taking power away from voters and allowing the Liberal Democrats to choose the government after each election.” This is also untrue. In 1997, 2001 and, in all probability, 2005, Tony Blair would have sailed home with a safe majority under AV – in fact, AV would probably have increased his majorities. So AV simply would not lead to permanent coalitions. It would, it is true, make coalitions somewhat more frequent because it would bolster the seat share of the Lib Dems. But single party majorities would likely remain the norm.
The No campaign’s final argument is that “AV is complicated and expensive”. It certainly is a little more complicated than First Past the Post. But there’s no evidence that voters can’t deal with that complexity. (AV opponents point to the large number of spoilt ballot papers in Australia, where AV is used. But that’s irrelevant: Australia has compulsory voting, so you need to spoil your ballot in order to express disapproval of the choice on offer.) AV would be a little more expense to run than First Past the Post: counts in closely fought seats would take longer and therefore cost more. But “more expensive” is not the same as “expensive”. The change would be small. If it’s a matter of great concern, it could be offset by a move to daytime counting.
So the only argument offered by the 'No' lobby that makes any sense is of no more than marginal significance. The rest is nonsense.
That’s not to say that the case for a 'Yes' vote is all that strong either. Actually, there are very good reasons for a No vote: AV would sometimes make election outcomes even less proportional than they are already; while not making coalitions inevitable, it would increase their frequency a bit – which many voters dislike on solid grounds.
The frustrating thing from the viewpoint of anyone who values quality public debate is that these good arguments are entirely ignored by the 'No' campaign. In their desperation for a quick headline, they have apparently decided that basic facts can be cast aside.
Alan Renwick's latest book, A Citizen's Guide to Electoral Reform, is an easy-to-read guide that cuts through all the obscurities laid in our way by the relative lobby groups and lets you know what's really at stake when the referendum comes. And it's available now, priced £9.99.