On AV

You should be voting YES in the referendum on Thursday.

There are definite arguments to made against AV. Let’s go through them.

The strongest argument against is that it’s a step on the way to proportional representation(PR). It seems silly not to concede that it is, even though we’ll be voting on AV and not on PR.

PR is bad because there are offensive minority parties, currently underrepresented, that could gain parliamentary representation in a fairer electoral system. This is the only sense in which the Tories’ claim that AV will be a boon to the BNP survives logical analysis.

Most countries that have PR have a threshold – say 5% of national vote – before parliamentary representation is given, which mitigates this somewhat.

But, hold on a second, is FPTP really better here? It privileges local representation (of sorts). This allows minority parties to focus campaigns on particular areas – eg. Barking for the BNP, or indeed Bethnal Green for Respect. And tout d’un coup these parties can gain parliamentary representation though organising locally a minority base vote.

So, sticking with FPTP seems the greater risk here, which explains why the BNP favour a NO vote.

AV, on its own, greatly mitigates the risk by requiring 50% (yes, yes, of preferences remaining…) before parliamentary representation is given.

PR’s also bad because, although systems vary, top-up appointments to parliament are made through party-drawn-up lists. There may be politicians in parliament who have never stood for election and this will undoubtedly strengthen the job-for-life political class.

It surprised me that the YES campaign made central the claim that it’ll end job-for-life seats, while opening the door to PR which makes that somewhat worse. This is a genuine argument against voting YES, perhaps the only valid one I think – that AV and PR might strengthen the hold of the political class.

But PR is, in principle, a very good thing. And it’s the kind of thing that no-one can really argue against. Parliament should reflect the vote of the people. And, if that makes for strange bedfellows and uncomfortable coalitions, so be it. Time for politicians to up their games.

Another argument, AV is not PR. Well, ok, but can you really deny it’s a step on the way? Does it really make sense to vote against this modest reform because it doesn’t go far enough? If this referendum fails, there’s unlikely to be another chance at reform in my lifetime. No, I don’t think this makes any sense. Grow up.

If the referendum on Thursday is lost, you can damn well be sure that the Tory response in the face of any constitutional reform will be: “proof that people care more about government services than constitutional reform.” And that’s largely, uncontroversially true. But we can have both, we deserve that much.

The argument about votes being counted twice is so mathematically disingenuous there’s no sense in really arguing about it. AV is run over multiple rounds, with the assumption that if your preferred candidate is still running, you’ll still vote for them. Everyone’s vote is counted once per round.

Next, we come to the simplicity of the voting system. Well, I find this argument quite astonishingly patronising. Not least because we’re already using this system, quite happily, for other elections. If you want to make a concession, we can write into law that a single cross in the box represents a first preference for that candidate. Problem solved.

The argument for AV is simple – in a third of our parliamentary seats, MPs are elected with fewer than 50% of the votes, the lowest gained just 29% of the votes.

FPTP is too coarse-grained. We cannot tell how much voter support Simon Wright (who gained just 29% of the vote in Norwich) is entitled to – perhaps 50% of voters would have accepted his election, perhaps a majority would have preferred someone else over him.

AV is an honest attempt to change this – to ensure that those elected are supported by the largest number of voters in their constituency. Even if many of those voters would prefer someone else as a first choice.

Optimistically, AV will change the way parties focus funds, by reducing the number of safe seats. Parties will change, even I suspect fragment, and campaigning will be broader, less negative, and more honest. Gone will be those awful, innumerate, patronising “only the Libdems can win here” bar-charts. One can dream. And I do. It’s a step in the right direction.

Tactical voting will be reduced – one can support, for example, a minority right-wing candidate without the danger of letting the pinkos in. And with that reduction, we have at least a chance to halt the decline of our political discourse.

Voting YES on Thursday is an optimistic choice – there are many unknowns and we’d be daft not to consider them. But, our democracy is in poor, old-fashioned, backward shape and well, we just deserve better. I’ll be voting YES.