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”
Mr. Sensible
I have to say i shudder somewhat if coalition politics is to be the order of the day given what we’ve got.
When clegg sold himself for a seat in power, that wasn’t exactly democratic, was it.
I certainly do not support full PR; it reduces the accountability within constituencies. AV is an improvement, but I am still not in favour of it and will vote against.
Add to that the gerrymandering of constituency boundries as highlighted by someone else.
Charlie Holden
RT @leftfootfwd: Socialism is Democracy: Labour should accept AV http://bit.ly/aKDPkY
John Slinger
Why is a system which gives weight to the 2nd, 3rd, etc preferences of those who voted for the candidate who LOST the first round (on 1st preferences alone) somehow fairer than FPTP? In a seat where the BNP were standing and were knocked out in round 1, this would mean their voters’ 2nd, 3rd etc preferences would immediately be added to the pot. How is this fair and how is this democratic? I believe in PR, not some weird labyrinthine system. As we may be about to discover with the Labour leadership result, AV can also result in the person who lost decisively in round one actually winning thanks to preferences. Often, as in this campaign, voters want to support one candidate, because they feel that person would be the best. That’s simple: I think you’d be best at the job, so I support you by giving you my vote. Under AV, we’re effectively expected to choose whom we support (1st preference) and then rank those who we have already effectively said we do not feel are up to it, in order of preference. Perhaps I’m missing something, but this seems strange and not an improvement on FPTP (for all its flaws).
cim
John Slinger: I too would much prefer PR, but nevertheless I think that AV is a far superior method for single-seat elections to FPTP and worth supporting on its own merits.
Taking the Labour leadership election as an example, it’s possible that if EM and DM were the only candidates, then EM would win under FPTP. It therefore seems silly that by adding three additional candidates who are not themselves going to win, DM wins because in general those three candidates take more of EM’s potential FPTP votes than DM does.
AV can also result in the person who lost decisively in round one actually winning thanks to preferences
You can’t assume that AV first preferences are the same as the FPTP votes would be for the same candidates, though. If the leadership election was being held under FPTP, then a lot of the first preference votes for DA/EB/AB would probably end up instead being FPTP votes for EM or DM.
In FPTP, the voter has to work out which the top two likely candidates are, and vote for the one they prefer (and if they guess wrong or choose not to do so, then the effect of their vote is identical to an abstention)
In AV the voting system automates this for the voter so all voters can vote honestly and have a more identical influence on the election outcome.
Darren Bridgman
@tscholesfogg ok I understand 140 char is not an easy way to have an argument my link is to a lab blogger for support http://bit.ly/9PtgyD