The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, has announced a referendum, in May 2011, on our voting system for General Elections. We have used first-past-the-post for a very long time. The candidate with the most votes in a constituency is elected, but not always with a majority of votes cast. Essentially we elect the most liked candidate and we might call this a positive motivation.
The referendum is on whether or not to adopt the AV (Alternative Vote) system where we can assign each candidate a preference number. In this system, we count the first preferences recorded against each candidate. If no candidate has a majority, the lowest placed candidate is eliminated and their second preferences are redistributed amongst the remaining contenders. The process continues until one candidate is elected through having a majority of votes cast.
With the AV system, we elect the least disliked candidate which seems like quite a negative driver. The system tends to favour those political parties who are middle-of the-road and not provoking strong reactions at either end of the political spectrum. I wonder which political party this system most benefits.
I had a theory as to why each of the main political parties would support holding the referendum:
The Conservatives liked it because they believed that in a run-off between first-past-the-post and AV, they could defeat AV for the reasons that I have given. We would be left with first-past-the-post in place and the least possibility of a further referendum on the subject in our lifetimes.
The Liberal Democrats liked it because they believed they could make the case for AV and secure a ‘yes’ vote. In doing so, they would not secure PR (proportional representation) which was their official aim. This did not matter because AV would make further hung Parliaments more likely and enable pressure to be applied for a second referendum for a true PR system of some kind.
Labour elements liked it because AV could perpetuate, in their terms, a progressive or anti-Conservative majority in Parliament. In particular, the system would address the problem of an apparently natural Conservative majority inEngland. Historically, Liberal Democrats tended to come second to Conservatives more often than Labour.
On the basis of the above driving motives, we are being offered the wrong referendum.
First-past-the-post maintains a link between an MP and a constituency. This is an important advantage of the system but does not offset the profound unfairness of some of the electoral outcomes. Those people voting for a political party can find themselves under-represented in Parliament because the vagaries of the system can produce electoral deserts.
In Scotland, the Conservatives returned one MP from the 59 seats. There should have been 10 Conservative MPs based on votes cast. In South East England, Labour returned four MPs from the 84 seats. There should have been 14 Labour MPs based on votes cast.
There is another approach. This is to vote on a system similar to that used for the Scottish Parliament. It involves fewer and larger Parliamentary constituencies elected by first-past-the post combined with top-up regional lists elected by a PR system. The approach could fit with the government’s intention to reduce the overall number of MPs.
This way we preserve an MP-constituency relationship while achieving fairer representation in Parliament. Votes would count much more equally than they do today. InCrawley, we could also see our constituency re-acquiring its rural hinterland.
This would be the right referendum to hold.
Councillor Bob Lanzer, Leader of Crawley Borough Council
6th July 2010