This week MPs have voted in support of a Bill which would mean that next May the country would get to decide on whether they want to stick with FPTP (first past the post) or switch to AV (Alternative Vote). While this may not have been the choice many of us who support a more proportional system wanted we shouldn’t underestimate its significance.
This week MPs have voted in support of a Bill which would mean that next May the country would get to decide on whether they want to stick with FPTP (first past the post) or switch to AV (Alternative Vote). While this may not have been the choice many of us who support a more proportional system wanted we shouldn’t underestimate its significance. It is for this reason that on Wednesday Compass published a major report calling on Labour to back the Alternative Vote referendum and push for a more meaningful proportional voting system.
In Compass’ latest report, Socialism is Democracy, Neal Lawson argues that any renewal of Labour as a party of real power must be predicated on the alignment of socialism and democracy. Electoral reform, far from being an issue for the chattering classes is of central importance for any people or organizations that want to see a more equal society.
Lawson argues that:
“Democracy is the means by which the powerful are kept in check to stop them becoming more powerful. It transfers power from the wallet to the ballot box.”
By extension Lawson asserts that the Conservative Party are currently opposing electoral reform because they are happy for an elitist society to prevail.
What’s more, the report demonstrates why electoral reform makes greater equality more likely. As Lawson goes onto say:
“FPTP (first past the post), because its outcomes rely on the votes of a few swing voters in a few swing seats, tends to concentrate political power in the hands of the already powerful… PR, on the other hand, precisely because it makes every vote count, disperses power. The academic Arend Lijphart argues that consensus democracy produces ‘kindlier, gentler policy outcomes including greater redistribution from the wealthy to the poor.”
Indeed the pamphlet argues that democracy is, as such, both the means and the ends of a socialist society. It is now time, as Lawson puts it, to drop the myth of 1945 – that socialism is what Labour governments do – as strong Labour governments alone won’t get us there and instead embrace a more plural, more proportional system of government, recognizing that to create a more equal society we need to create a fairer electoral system.
Furthermore, Lawson explains why we have to accept that coalition government is here to stay and that a more proportional system is not only desirable but increasingly essential:
• First, the number of people voting for the two main parties has declined from around 97% in 1951 to 65% today;
• Turnout has fallen, down from 80% in the immediate post-war years, hitting 59% in 2005, before recovering slightly in 2010;
• A third of the electorate did not vote for the two main parties; and finally
• There has been a dramatic decline in marginal seats from 180 seats in 1970 around to only 86 seats.
The likelihood of securing big majorities and strong single party governments is being reduced by these decisive trends – the public are delivering coalition governments even under a FPTP system. It is now time for our electoral system to catch up with the public.
The AV is far from the perfect electoral system, but a yes vote at a referendum next year will show decisively that the way we elect officials, our democracy, is not monolithic – it can change and that such a change is both necessary and desirable.
35 Responses to “Socialism is Democracy: Labour should accept AV”
Andy White
@oldpolitics
1) AV would disadvantage extreme parties (those for which mainstream voters have little sympathy, such as the BNP), but not ‘radical’ parties like the Greens or UKIP. The Green vote in Australia is at a healthy 11%, achievable because of AV. While AV doesn’t increase (or decrease) smaller parties’ chances of securing seats in parliament, it increases their ability to influence politics.
2) AV would, in practical terms, end tactical voting, as I have explained on the LSE blog: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/?p=3915
Anon E Mouse
Andy White – On tactical voting what if the electorate like the coalition (I do, it seems so refreshing) and go say Tory then Lib-Dem and visa versa in Labour held marginals depending on the chances of stronger coalition party winning.
One may not be able to ensure the outcome of which of the two would hold the most seats but could certainly it could increase the chances of another coalition and damaging seriously Labour – unless they proposed a coalition with the Lib Dems themselves…
Andy White
@Anon E Mouse
That isn’t tactical voting, though — that’s a sincere expression of a voter’s preferences.
re: the coalition, it has certainly damaged the Lib-Lab link, but I don’t think the Lib-Con link is any stronger at the voter level. Yes, the Lib Dem parliamentary party is now much closer to the Conservatives, but Lib Dem voters remain predominantly left-leaning.
As for the likelihood of future hung parliaments, in a single-member system (which both FPTP and AV are), this is dependent on context. In some situations, AV makes hung parliaments more likely, in others it makes them less likely. This has little (if anything) to do with what the parties actually propose electorally. It’s more about fragmentation of the vote and geographic concentrations of party support.
The last election wasn’t hung because the British public magically asked for a hung parliament — they’ve asked, proportionally, for a hung parliament in every election since the war. But now factors have combined to make Westminster particularly susceptible to hung parliaments, regardless of whether FPTP or AV is used (look at the situation in Canada).
We shouldn’t decide to support AV on the basis of whether or not it delivers more hung parliaments, but on the improvements it makes upon FPTP at the constituency level: MPs forced to work harder to win support of a majority of his/her constituents, more marginal constituencies, and no incentive to vote tactically.
cim
In other words how do you get the buggers out under PR?
Depends on the PR system. STV makes it very easy to remove individual politicians without harming their party if you still want to vote for it. Open-list PR is still fairly good as long as the parties don’t cynically put up exactly as many candidates as they can win places for (which can backfire horribly in the event of a late surge in the polls, so they probably won’t).
Closed-list PR is terrible for exactly this reason and I’d rather have a decent non-proportional system than that.
what if the electorate like the coalition
Then loyal transfers between LD and C is not (under AV) a good way to keep it, since it benefits the conservatives enough that they get a significant outright majority (yes, I know, 100% transfers is ridiculous).
The best guarantee of coalition (FPTP, AV or even under PR) is a significant rise in the number of seats won by the Lib Dems, but not by the Conservatives, which just means tactical voting for the Lib Dems under FPTP and in AV (oddly) tactically preferencing LD over C as a Conservative-leaning coalition supporter in a LD/C marginal (and voting honestly otherwise).
Sophie Bryce
RT @leftfootfwd: New post: Socialism is Democracy: Labour should accept AV http://bit.ly/9ytGQ9