Considering AV

[tobyaw]

When the campaigns started a few weeks ago for the AV referendum, I didn’t have a strong view. I vaguely felt that FPTP worked ok, that AV probably wouldn’t make much difference, and that I was glad PR wasn’t an option.

Over the course of the campaign my opinion has hardened, not so much from what the “No to AV” campaign has been saying, or from any love for FPTP, but rather from how I’ve disagreed with much of what the “Yes to AV” campaign has had to say.

My thinking is that parliamentary elections serve two distinct purposes: firstly, for a constituency to select an honest member, true to their beliefs, who will best represent the views of their constituents in parliament, and secondly, for a government to be formed that best represents the will of the country, with a clear mandate to implement a manifesto. This definite statement of policy matters in Westminster elections, where the government has tax-raising and borrowing powers that other elected bodies in the UK don’t have. (When a parliament, assembly, or council merely has spending powers, then I see less need for the clarity of single-party rule.)

I don’t think AV would help achieve these goals. It is claimed that AV would encourage politicians to “work harder” to appeal to all their constituents; I think this means that politics will become even more of a game of presentation, as candidates hide their true nature behind a centrist veneer, and modify their policies to suit their audience. AV will present a more slightly more complex voting process, and significantly more complex counting process; both of which will serve to disengage the electoral from politics. AV will encourage tactical voting, based on party choices rather than individual candidates. I think that there is something deeply unsound about the distribution of second preference votes starting with the least-popular candidates. And AV is viewed by many of its proponents as merely a stepping-stone towards PR, which I believe would do terrible things to the public’s engagement with politics.

(My solution to fixing our electoral system would be to keep FPTP, but to take the party names and slogans off the ballot papers. Let the electorate choose their MP from a list of names and photos. Let voters choose who they want to represent them, rather than which party they prefer. Can’t help thinking that politics would be cleaner and more positive if we diminished the role of parties at the local level.)

Comments

[ggreig]

We totally disagree on the relative merits of PR and FPTP, so I won't go there.

However, I think you may have a slightly rosy view of the value of voting for a person rather than a party. Having grown up in Argyll where "independents" are still the major force in local politics, if not at the national level, I know that voters can find the lack of information about what a candidate's likely to support frustrating, and often feel betrayed by those they've voted in. Party labels may be a caricature, but in practice they seem to be a reasonable indication of what you're going to get (especially with the regrettable lack of candidates willing to vote against their party on individual issues - yes, that is me having my cake and eating it ;-).

[tobyaw]

I broadly agree; I understand all the benefits of political parties, the need for a common message to be presented at national level, and for manifestos to give voters an idea of what kind of government could result from their local choice.

However, apart from perhaps on budgets, I desperately want more MPs to vote against their parties. I want parliament to be divided on the issues, not on party lines. I heartily dislike the idea of whipped votes.

So yes, candidates as members of a political party, but the party should be the sum of the members, as opposed to controlling the members.

[andrewducker]

I totally agree with this. And given the chance to produce a voting system that supported this more (like STV) I'd be on it like a shot. Sadly, we're not being offered that.

[tobyaw]

I haven't looked at STV closely enough to have formed an opinion on it. I tried reading the Wikipedia page on it, but I'm not awake enough to take it in, sitting in a warm office in sunny Dundee, waiting for the weekend to start.

[andrewducker]

STV has multi-member constituencies. You vote preferentially, and you vote for the people you want, in the order you want them.

So in a four-member seat there would be a variety of people standing: four (usually) Conservatives, four Labour, four Lib-Dem, and probably less of the other parties. I would then choose the individuals in the order I wanted them. So I could look at voting records and choose two Lib-Dem people I liked, a Labour member with a strong civil-liberties standing, then another Lib-Dem person, etc, etc,. They're then elected in a very similar manner to the way AV works (if anyone had more than 20% of the vote they'd be elected, if not someone would be eliminated and their votes redistributed, extra votes for an elected member would also be redistributed).

This removes some power from the parties, as you choose which of the members to support, while also allowing a measure of proportionality.

It's how elections are carried out for Northern Ireland's assembly, and for Scottish councils.

[tobyaw]

Ah, that makes sense.

I don’t think I approve of multi-member constituencies. The electorate becomes disengaged from politics when they don’t have ownership of a single elected representative. From my experience — and my Very Scientific poll http://tobyaw.livejournal.com/274978.html — I don’t people feel much connection to any of the councillors, MSPs, or MEPs that they elect through forms of PR.

And I’m not convinced that STV would remove power from the parties. I reckon most people would respond to an STV poll at the party level. With a choice of tens of candidates to choose from, voters wouldn’t be able to make an informed choice (it’s hard enough to remember anything distinguishing about the candidates with the handful standing in a typical Westminster seat).