In 2009, the BBC politics department did a thought experiment regarding which voting system to use in a referendum on which voting system to use. The options available were: the current First Past the Post system (FPTP), the Alternative Vote (AV), the Single Transferable Vote (STV), and Borda, a points-based system. They supposed that there were 100 voters, who 'happened' to be divided into four opinion groups, with their order of preference for the voting system as follows:
| No of voters | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th |
| 28 | FPTP | Borda | AV | STV |
| 27 | AV | STV | Borda | FPTP |
| 24 | STV | AV | Borda | FPTP |
| 21 | Borda | STV | FPTP | AV |
So if FPTP was used to count the result of the referendum, it would win; if AV was used it would win; if STV was used it would win; and if Borda was used it would win. Overall result: an amusing and interesting story. The trouble is, the BBC rigged the opinion groups to get the result they wanted. In reality there could be up to 24 rows in the above table and any combination is possible. For example, still using their four opinion groups, but swapping the 2nd and 4th preferences of the 24 voters who put STV first, would give FPTP the victory.
Paul Vallely cited this in a recent blog post, but of much more interest is the following part of his article: "there is no simple correlation between the number of MPs and the voting power they command in practice... A small party can be as powerful as a much larger one, or utterly powerless, depending on how the coalitions fit together... The Liberal Democrats may have got fewer seats than Labour but they got more power because they joined the government. Lib Dem voters got some power; Labour voters got none."
So AV is probably a red herring. But it's important to me to exercise my hard-won right to vote freely in local, national and European elections, and then to try to influence whoever turns out to be my councillors, MP and MEPs. Yesterday was Palm Sunday, and in the reading of the Passion according to Matthew, we heard Pilate asking the crowd to vote: " 'Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus* Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?' " (Matt 27:17; NRSV).
so will you be voting for AV then? My own view is that there is no point voting for more of the same. We need to try something different because FPTP no longer works. If AV doesnt work either we will just have to change again until we find something that does. Having said that its worth remembering Churchill's words on democracy as the 'lesser of two evils' (or some such) Perhaps thats how we need to view AV vs FPTP
ReplyDeleteYes, I voted for AV, for a number of reasons good (reduces tactical voting) and bad (the Tories are against it). If FPTP is so good, why is it not used in Scotland or Wales (in its pure Westminster form), NI, London mayoral or European elections? Mind you, having been 'represented in Europe' by 2 UKIPpers when living the southwest, I'd rather not have pure PR.
ReplyDeleteChurchill said something like "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
I like AV, not because it necessarily produces fairer results, but because it allows me to feel that my vote is still 'counted' even if my first choice is eliminated, and also it gives me a way to vote 'against' a candidate (eg a racist) by voting for all the others, thus ensuring that whoever is most likely to beat the racist will gain my vote.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how Caroline Lucas would have done for the Greens (my usual preferred party) under AV in Brighton last time out. Would she still have won?