An exhaustive academic report shows why Labour would benefit from the Alternative Vote. The report argues ""By opposing AV ... the Labour Party is likely to deprive itself of a chance to gain seats"
The principled arguments for a ‘Yes’ vote in May’s referendum on the Alternative Vote have been well documented by Next Left among others. But the partisan case for Labour to campaign for a ‘Yes’ vote has now become clear in an exhaustive academic report (pdf) by the “world’s leading expert on referendums“, Dr Matt Qvortrup of Cranfield University.
“In every election since 1997, the Labour Party would have gained more seats under AV than under First-Past-the-Post. There is only one academic study that gives Labour fewer seats than actually won under First-Past-the-Post, and this was in an unrepresentative year.”
Reiterating research published in The Guardian, the academic outlines that Labour would have gained four more seats in the 2010 election under AV while the Conservatives would have won 26 fewer seats.
Dr Qvortrup rebuts a recent article by Strathclyde University’s John Curtice which suggested that the Tories could benefit from the introduction of AV by outlining that the argument was “not based on empirical evidence” but on “assumptions” and “conjecture”. The article was:
“a journalistic comment, not a solid piece of political science … If we rely on the figures from surveys as provided by opinion polls the result is clear; Labour would gain from the introduction of AV.”
Referring to claims that the 2008 Mayoral election showed that Conservatives had an advantage, Dr Qvortrup writes:
“The myth that Boris Johnson’s victory in the 2008 suggests that the Tories have an advantage under AV is equally flawed. In fact, Boris Johnson polled fewer Second Preference votes than Ken Livingstone. Had had Ken Livingstone only won another 0.04 percent of the Second Preferences he would have beaten Boris Johnson although the Labour Candidate received almost 150.000 fewer first preference votes than his Conservative challenger.”
Dr Qvortrup concludes that:
“By opposing the Alternative Vote – or by campaigning half-heartedly for it – the Labour Party is likely to deprive itself of a chance to gain seats, and even of unseating the Government in the next General Election …
“AV is Labour’s best chance of ousting the Conservative-led government and for appealing to disgruntled Liberal Democrat voters who regret that their parties opted for an alliance with David Cameron rather than a partnership with the Labour Party.”
81 Responses to “Labour’s ‘no brainer’ case to campaign for AV”
Philip Fraser
There is a big flaw in us supporting AV that will ruin our electoral chances: Getting people out to vote under AV. Check research – the more complex an electoral system, the more likely those who are unsure of voting aren’t going to bother in the end. And what sort of people are these? The people we try to appeal to a lot – notably the working class and BMEs. Supporting AV will ruin us. AV will bring another decade of Conservative governments. FPTP is great for our party. Without it, we have no chance of winning in 2015.
Aaron
The campaign for AV should be about making the voting system fairer, not about assessing how it will affect our party and voting tactically.
Petty and unnecessary tribalism won’t win this referendum.
Stephen Newton
That AV might benefit Labour should not be the deciding factor (although we are talking about a fairly marginal change to Labour’s situation in any case).
As Éoin Clarke points out this system freezes out parties smaller than the Lib Dems. It is not a system of proportional representation, but an attempt to lock in a three party system. The only party that significantly benefits is the Lib Dems.
(BTW Éoin Oldham is just north of Manchester.)
UK Polling Report
[…] on Left Foot Forward there is a paper by a Dr Matt Qvortrup arguing that the introduction of AV would help Labour and […]
Extradition Game
RT @leftfootfwd: Labour's 'no brainer' case to campaign for AV: http://bit.ly/icErzf by @wdjstraw #Yes2AV