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”
Elliot Folan
As a member of the Greens I would just like to point out that the Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW) and the Scottish Green Party have both joined the campaign for the Alternative Vote. An overwhelming vote was passed at the GPEW Autumn conference to support the campaign and a similar motion at the Scots Greens conference.
Greens have been some of the most avid supporters of AV. But the motion we passed at GPEW conference was telling. We made no mention of the potential benefits to ourselves: instead it simply stated the benefits to the voters – no more tactical voting, majority support and reduction of safe seats. We back AV because we think it is a fairer system: not because of a partisan hope that we will win out from it.
Even if Labour backed AV just because it thought it would win more seats then I would of course still welcome them warmly to the campaign; so I welcome the Labour YES! campaign. But I would think less of the party if it just backed it on narrow self-interest.
Labour has a chance to redeem itself in the eyes of reformers whom it has betrayed so many times by promising referendums on proportional systems. We waited 13 long years watching report after report and commission after commission. I think I speak for most reformers when I say we are sick of waiting.
AltGovUK
RT @leftfootfwd: Labour's 'no brainer' case to campaign for AV: http://bit.ly/icErzf by @wdjstraw #Yes2AV
Mr. Sensible
William, I am totally opposed to an elected second chamber; I think we should get rid of the remaining harreditary peers, but the problem with an elected second chamber is that this would introduce party politics in to the situation, and thus damage the chamber’s role as a revising chamber.
At any rate, on this, Will, would it be possible to make predictions for this based on the government’s gerrymandering of constituency boundries? Has any attempt been made in this study to look at the possible permutations of that?
Francis McGonigal
“Had Livingstone only secured second preferences from 00.4 percent of the voters (11,182) he would have beaten Boris Johnson.” from Dr Matt Qvortrup’s report.
This looks like a mistake since Johnson won by about 140,000. Perhaps if full AV was used (not the Supplementary Vote) then third and further preferences would have led to a closer result. Is that the point Dr Qvortrup is trying to make?
Dylan Lewis
RT @labouryes: Labour’s ‘no brainer’ case to campaign for AV by @wdjstraw http://bit.ly/gqgVGy #labouryes #yes2av