In the past week, campaigning for the 5 May constitutional referendum on changing the parliamentary voting system gained momentum, once again bringing tensions within the governing coalition to the fore. Amidst fears of apathy and low turnout which would call into question the legitimacy of the ballot – likely the result of conflicting and often misleading messages being peddled by both “Yes” and “No” campaigns – the Electoral Commission weighed in, delivering booklets offering official, neutral advice concerning the technical aspects of the systems in question. However, several of the finer aspects have been largely overlooked thus far.
A primary contention of the “Yes” campaign has been that candidates will, under the AV system, have to work much harder in attracting support from beyond their core clients to secure a majority of the votes and avoid the anomalous scenario whereby a candidate can win a seat with a minority (217 of the 650 MPs elected in 2010 did not achieve a majority). As far as representative democracy goes, the returning of majorities is to be applauded. However, unlike the variant of AV employed in Australia, British voters will retain the option of voting for one candidate only in a practice Vernon Bogdanor refers to as ‘plumping’. Thus, the potential for seats to be secured with a minority of votes would continue unabashed even if AV is enacted. By the same token, one must question the accuracy of terming an outcome a “majority” when the result consists of non-first preference ballots. Campaigners from the “Yes” lobby are making promises beyond that which the system can deliver. While the Alternative Vote is not as complex as some in the “No” camp would like us to believe, and would not require the use of expensive equipment to tally votes, this is scant consolation.
Indeed, Bogdanor notes that in Queensland and New South Wales, where plumping is permitted in elections to state legislatures, the practice is rather common – some 63% of voters in Queensland plumped in 2009 after a Labour Party campaign to “Just Vote 1”, while the Green Party similarly advised that second preferences be given to Labour. This raises another issue concerning AV: tactical voting. Given the opportunity to rank candidates, it is likely that many will vote with their heart for the first preference and their head for any secondary allocations, thereby giving rise to greater strategic ballot-casting and opening the door for negative campaigning. Equally, while the plight of AV to allow every voter a meaningful ballot is admirable, such an outcome is not realistic against a backdrop of competitive multi-party politics; as long as a majoritarian system of vote counting is in operation, some electors will inevitably be disappointed – this is the nature of electoral politics. In this regard, all that the Alternative Vote succeeds in doing is assigning greater weight to the ballots of those electing for nominees from unpopular parties in the first instance, thereby disregarding Aristotelian notions of democratic equality. Clearly, this challenges the principle of One Man One Vote, justifying the description of AV as ‘unacceptably unfair’ by the Jenkins Report on voting reform.
Also in the headlines recently, Baroness Warsi claimed that the AV system would benefit extremist organisations, suggesting that its implementation would strengthen parties such as the BNP. This is very much a falsehood, no doubt an effort to play to popular sentiment and pull voters onside; with only 1.9% of the vote nationally in 2010 on first preferences and with many candidates failing to reclaim their deposits, it is unlikely that many BNP candidates would make it beyond the first series of vote redistributions, let alone surpass the 50% hurdle. Indeed, given their current standings in the popularity stakes, it is unlikely that AV would much benefit even the LibDems at this moment. However, the outrage that has been expressed at this misguided possibility reveals a fascinating contradiction: in a referendum that seeks to refine the democratic credentials of parliamentary elections, is there (or, indeed, should there exist) room to object with who can and cannot succeed?
No comments:
Post a Comment