AV is a fudge
Along with the impending Crawley Borough Council Election, we also have on 5th May a referendum on the voting system for the election of our MPs. This is a quite rare example of direct democracy being used to reach a decision although there was another example last week, inWales, where people voted to extend the powers of their National Assembly.
Voting systems can produce some interesting outcomes. With our current first-past-the-post method, a lot depends on how a political party's votes are spread. Sometimes the party with the most votes does not form or even participate in the national government. In the 1951 General Election, Labour polled more votes than the Conservatives but the latter party formed the new government under Winston Churchill. Similarly in February 1974, the Conservatives polled more votes than Labour but Harold Wilson formed his third administration.
Following the 1983 General Election, there was not a single Labour MP south of a line running fromBristoltoLondon, which would seem unfair based on the numbers of votes received. The Conservatives have seen equivalent outcomes inScotlandwhere even now, we have just the one MP. Locally, the all-out Crawley Borough Council Election of 2004 saw the Conservatives receive some 4,500 more votes than Labour but return three fewer councillors.
All of that said, when comparing first-past-the-post with the only alternative on offer, AV (Alternative Vote), our current system wins hands-down. AV is in use by no more than six countries worldwide. It has not captured the imagination or proved popular.
There are good reasons for this. AV is fundamentally a fudge tending to elect the least disliked rather than the most liked candidate. This is a negative driver for a voting system.
The system works with voters being able to cast first, second, third etc. preferences for the candidates. If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, the lowest placed candidate is eliminated and their second preferences redistributed amongst the remaining contenders. This process continues until somebody achieves an overall majority.
Some electors will get multiple votes through the allocation of preferences. The successful candidate will commonly not be the person who received the most first preferences, i.e. the most positively liked candidate. The whole process is something of a mess and would not produce credible results.
Asking the question that Lenin liked to put, "Who does this benefit?", the answer is clear. It is centre parties and one in particular in the British context. If we are to adopt a new electoral system, there should be more beneficiaries than that. An electoral system should not be configured to confer benefit on a particular political party, but to forward the cause of representative democracy. AV fails this test.
Councillor Bob Lanzer, Leader of Crawley Borough Council
10 March 2011