Pickles’ selective citation on AV

An extraordinary new video from Eric Pickles selectively cites 2005 election results. It erroneously claims that AV would be less fair than the current system.

An extraordinary new video from Eric Pickles selectively cites 2005 election results to claim that introducing the Alternative Vote electoral system would be less fair than the current first-past-the-post system.

PICKLES: What this means in practice. At the 2005 general election, we got 8,115,00 votes. The Labour party got 8,050,400 votes. Under AV, despite the Conservatives polling more votes, Labour would have more MPs in Parliament.

Watch it:

Although not mentioned once, the votes cited by Pickles exclude Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. A paper by the House of Commons library outlines that at the 2005 election, despite the Conservatives polling more votes, Labour got 286 MPs in England while the Conservatives got 194. Again, looking at England alone, projections by the Electoral Reform Society show that Labour would have gained 12 seats under AV, the Conservatives would have lost 20 seats but that the Lib Dems would have gained nine. But this, and similar results in 1997 and 2001, are something of a statistical anomaly.

Curtice et al found that, in 1997, 10 per cent of voters did not vote for their preferred candidate but switched for tactical reasons. This incentive would be removed under AV. As Sunder Katwala of the Fabian Society told Left Foot Forward:

“A big part of the Tory argument in the Commons was that only first preferences should count. They depend here on the (false) claim that the FPTP results reveal first preferences, as Pickles’ vote totals here do. For lots of voters they don’t. This means that the assumption that Pickles knows what the pattern of votes under AV is flawed: straight projections across need a health warning”

And even using these “straight projections,” the Jenkins Commission report detailed how it is only in “some circumstances” that AV produces a more disproportionate system:

“In the three previous elections, those of 1983, 1987 and 1992, AV would have had a less distorting effect on proportionality between the two main parties.”

In his report ‘A Better Alternative? What AV would mean for Westminster’ Lewis Baston, Director of Research at the Electoral Reform Society, wrote:

“[I]n many circumstances [AV] produces results that relate seats a little more closely to votes than is usual under FPTP. But with single seat electoral systems like AV and FPTP proportionality depends on a range of contingent factors…

“AV is a more robust and defensible majoritarian system. AV is intrinsically a better system than FPTP, and if we were starting from a position of having AV, few if any electoral reformers would give consideration to moving to FPTP…

“AV is possibly a ‘better’ system than many reformers have hitherto conceded, in that it does have intrinsic merits that make it superior to FPTP. The ability of voters to record a sincere first preference, the widening of political choice available to the elector, and the disincentives it offers for parties to pursue core vote strategies that ignore the wishes of the majority of the electorate, are all positive. The much-discussed negative of occasionally producing more disproportional results than FPTP is a weaker counter-argument than generally admitted, as the circumstances in which it does are rare, actually replicable in FPTP by electoral pacts and tactical voting, and somewhat defensible in principle.

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

10 Responses to “Pickles’ selective citation on AV”

  1. Shamik Das

    Dear Mr @Ericpickles, do you have the slightest idea what you're talking about? RT @leftfootfwd: Pickles’ v odd views AV: http://is.gd/89882

  2. James Graham

    It isn’t just Pickles who has made this mistake; the BBC’s own figures make the same assumption (I note that they’ve now included a barely adequate PDF explaining these figures, together with “an alternate view” based on John Curtice’s figures – I suspect he was the one who complained).

  3. Jessica Asato

    RT @leftfootfwd: Pickles’ selective citation on AV: http://is.gd/89882

  4. Gary

    I think you’ve hit on a real problem here with AV though but not made the point explicitly. Because, broadly, we have two liberal-left parties in the UK and one right wing one the major affect of AV would be to disproportionately harm the Conservatives while benefitting Labour and especially Lib Dem.

    You cite 1983, ’87 and ’92 as instances of where AV was more proportional that FPTP but that’s only because the Conservatives won. Under FPTP that basically means they were overrepresented and because AV harms the Conservatives, it has the overall effect of making the result look more proportional. Actually, since the difference is only a small number of seats it’s not significantly more proportional anyway.

    However, if you look at the election of 1997 and those since then, you’ll see that Labour are vastly overrepresented under AV, even more so that they were under FPTP. While the Conservatives are underrepresented by over 100 seats in 1997.

    One reason that the Jenkins Commission discounted standard AV is for that reason. They argued that it would be totally unnacceptable to have an electoral system that specifically underrepresents one political party, it would give them the Conservatives a systemic disadvantage even more severe than the one they currently face.

  5. Vote For A Change

    @gjcsouthsea Here's a great debunking of the basis of this video: http://bit.ly/dru5PN

Comments are closed.