Friday, 29 April 2011

The Facts on the Alternative Vote (AV)

There are a lot of claims and counter claims flying about at the moment so please allow me to introduce some sanity. The PSA have produced a briefing paper on AV which provides unbiased facts on what AV would mean were it to be introduced. Rather than having to read the whole thing, I reproduce here the Executive Summary:

Executive Summary

We face a very important choice in the referendum on our electoral system on 5th May. But many of
the claims being made by both sides are either false or exaggerated.  We need a debate that is
grounded in solid evidence. This paper provides that grounding.

The basics of AV
  • A move to the Alternative Vote (AV) would not be a radical change from the current system of First Past the Post (FPTP).  AV is not a proportional system. Rather,  AV is  majoritarian: candidates win by securing a majority of the votes in their constituency.  Under FPTP, only a relative majority is required; under AV, the goal is that winning candidates should secure an absolute majority.  
  • AV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference.  If no one wins more than 50 per cent of first preferences, second and sometimes lower preferences are taken into account.

AV’s known effects
  • AV would increase voter choice – between but not within political parties.  
  • AV would reduce but not end tactical voting.
  • AV would uphold the principle of “one person, one vote”.  Every voter would still be treated equally; each vote would count only once in deciding who is elected in each constituency.
  • AV would give weight to second and lower preferences as well as first preferences.  The merits of this move can be debated.
  • AV is not a proportional system.
  • AV would not eliminate safe seats, though it will probably reduce their number.
  • AV would not cost much to implement.

AV’s likely effects
  • AV would probably not change turnout at elections.  Nor is it likely to change significantly the number of spoilt ballots.
  • AV is unlikely to change the structure of the party system fundamentally.  But it is likely to increase the Lib Dems’ seat share somewhat, at the expense of the other main parties.
  • AV would probably make coalition governments slightly more frequent (but changes in how people vote mean coalitions are already becoming more likely under FPTP).
  • AV would probably sometimes exaggerate landslides.
  • Minor parties under AV would probably win more votes, but not more seats.  AV would belikely to increase the bargaining power of some minor parties, but not of extremists such as the BNP.  It did not help Australia’s One Nation party.
  • AV would be unlikely to increase the number of women or ethnic minority MPs.
  • AV would be unlikely significantly to change  the standards of  MPs’  behaviour or the relationship between MPs and voters.  It might make some MPs focus more on constituency work – which might or might not be desirable.
  • AV would probably reduce the tribalism of political battle only at the margins.
  • A “yes” vote would probably make further electoral system change later on more likely.
So now you have the facts on the matter. Hopefully you will now be able to make an informed decision.

Alternatively you can check out No to Democracy for reasons to vote no.

No comments:

Post a Comment

I'm indebted to Birkdale Focus for the following choice of words:

I am happy to address most contributions, even the drunken ones if they are coherent, but I am not going to engage with negative sniping from those who do not have the guts to add their names or a consistent on-line identity to their comments. Such postings will not be published.

Anonymous comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will continue to be posted. Libellous comments or remarks I think may be libellous will not be published.

I will also not tolerate personation so please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person. If you do not like these rules then start your own blog.

Oh, and if you persist in repeating yourself despite the fact I have addressed your point I may get bored and reject your comment.

The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.