Not just another WordPress weblog
Fair Votes Referendum
I was pleased to hear the news today that a date has been set for a referendum on the reform of our voting system. I was disappointed when the coalition Government revealed that it would be a vote on using the Alternative Vote system in future, as I’d been hoping for STV, but as I’ve said all along, in a coalition, we have to make sacrifices on some things to gain results on the more important things, and to get a referendum on some form of voting reform is a big step forwards, no matter the form offered.
AV is not proportional representation, but it’s far better than what we’ve got: it would be almost impossible for any system to be less proportional than FPTP; following the 2005 election, Labour won 40% of the available seats, despite only taking 35.2% of the vote. In the 2010 election, my MP was elected by less than 50% of the electorate in my constituency.
On the flip-side, AV would allow voters to rank their choices and an MP would only be elected after gaining the support of more than half of their electors. It would be possible to only vote for the candidates you liked, and perhaps even register a preference to re-open nominations over electing one candidate.
Unfortunately, some Conservative MPs are trying to influence the referendum already, ten months before it even happens, by making uncounted votes – those of electors who choose not to cast their opinion – mean a vote against the proposal, by demanding a threshold of 40% of the electorate. Whilst it may be fair to assume that a non-voter does not care, it is fundamentally wrong to assume that they do not want the proposal. If a member of the electorate actively cares and wishes to vote against something, after all, they will do so.
Thresholds are not used in elections, and I question the need for them at a referendum; indeed, Bernard Jenkin MP, who I believe to be the proposer of the threshold, is one of 95% of MPs who wouldn’t have been elected had there been a 40% threshold in May. I believe that it would be a travesty to make the very referendum deciding whether or not to use a fairer method of voting an unfair vote itself.
I’ve written to my MP conveying these thoughts because whilst I realise that the Alternative Vote system would likely not benefit the his party, Labour, I don’t see supporting a referendum as supporting AV itself, and of course, Labour promised a referendum on AV as a part of their manifesto prior to the General Election, and I want to make sure that at least one of his constituents cares about reforming the vote to make it fairer. If you’d like to write to your MP, Take Back Parliament have an excellent template and easy-to-use form to do.
| This entry was posted by tajasel on July 6, 2010 at 00:15, and is filed under Voting Reform. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 2 months ago
I’m not feeling it, I’ll be fair. AV is better than nothing, but the tories are going to gerrymander the shit out of it to make the whole thing pointless. I might move to Zimbabwe, where at least people don’t think the government isn’t out to get them.
about 2 months ago
Heh. The same point as I posted on about 4 minutes earlier, but you expressed it much better :-)
IIRC that the draft coalition agreement that was released just after the election only mentioned a referendum on AV – pretty sure it said nothing about PR of any sort. However, you can bet that the FUD that starts up in the next few weeks will try to confuse the two issues.
As I see it, the move to AV has to be a good thing regardless. If you don’t support PR, it’s a fairer way to elect single constituency MPs. If you do support PR, it’s a way to get people familiar with ranking their preferences[1], making the mechanics of STV more comprehensible to the masses. Of course, a “no” result here would probably be taken as a mandate against electoral reform of any kind….
IIRC the draft agreement also mentioned moves towards a new 2nd house which *would* be elected along proportional lines. It’ll be interesting to see if that ever happens. I hope it’s not quietly forgotten.
[1] Well, those who aren’t already in London, Scotland or Wales, and thus already using such a system.
about 2 months ago
My point about PR vs. AV was exactly that: PR was never mentioned despite hundreds, if not thousands, of people campaigning for it to be used under the Take Back Parliament banner. Still, as you say, AV goes some of the way, and is therefore good.
In fact, there is a remarkable number of Londoners who don’t grasp FPTP for local elections (where you choose three candidates per ballot) and rank their preferences. (Fortunately, it’s still usually accepted, as long as they only rank 3 candidates.)
I vehemently disagree with a second house that is elected in any way. I dislike hereditary seats, but think that having the second house elected would result in members doing what they think the electorate want in order to be re-elected, rather than doing what is right.
At the moment, the Peers don’t care about how the public see them beyond the way any other human would, and anyone can write to any Peer to express their views. Some balance between hereditary and elected needs to be made instead.