Voting on Voting: The Politics of Fairness

In the week that the The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill finally succeeded in navigating its route onto the statute books in time for a 5 May 2011 referendum on electoral reform, more questions have seemingly been asked than answered. Indeed, rather than the merits, or otherwise, of the alternative vote (AV) system, the difficulties encountered by a coalition government divided on the issue of electoral reform are perhaps the very reason for the most significant change to the electoral system since reducing the minimum voting age only now becoming compellingly political, rather than a constitutional obiter dictum or academic fixation.

Both Cameron and Clegg, in the first instance of the prime minister and his deputy speaking from opposing standpoints, have insisted that neither the campaign nor the outcome will impede the ability of the coalition to govern, with Cameron remarking that ‘on this one, I don’t agree with Nick’. However, the existence of this divide – itself a microcosm of the coalition’s stance, broadly speaking – is representative of fundamental underlying incompatibilities within the ideological beliefs of the governing parties: will the coalition survive the campaign, let alone the result?

With both returning to their roles as respective party leaders, rather than coalition partners, the promised campaign maturity was delivered; the speeches were timed so as not to coincide, partisan mudslinging was absent, and both even agreed that the referendum should select a voting system that promotes democratic fairness. So far, so good. However, the arguments laid down on either side of the divide, despite aiming at the same ends, differ significantly.

Cameron, in affirming his support of the “No” campaign, suggested that AV can produce illogical and unrepresentative outcomes, allowing some votes to count multiple times and empowering bland second-choice candidates to limp to victory. Similarly, he argued, AV will produce more hung parliaments – the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, more often than not, produces strong governments in Britain – and result in more bargaining behind closed doors with manifesto pledges being sacrificed. This puts Cameron in an awkward position; given the circumstances under which the current government was formed, such a statement could easily be read as an acceptance that the coalition is both unsatisfactory and unfair.

For Clegg, FPTP dictates that millions of votes are wasted; AV will halt the notion of ‘jobs for life in safe seats’ and will bring an end to elections decided by a few thousand voters in swing seats, giving smaller parties a greater input and fostering a truly multiparty system. Furthermore, Clegg suggests that AV will force MPs to work harder for each ballot, moving away from their core vote in order to maximise appeal and thereby providing representative outcomes while maintaining the all-important constituency link (with constituency sizes being standardised to ensure the equal worth of each vote).

How we conceive fairness, therefore, is clearly a central issue: do we prefer to allow the voices of those voting for smaller parties to count more than once, defying the central democratic principle of “one man, one vote”; or do we favour effectively disenfranchising those voters in “safe” seat constituencies wishing to elect someone other than the dominate candidate. Such a choice is not straightforward. Complicating matters is the knowledge that not only would implementing AV not have changed the outcome of any national election since 1983, but also that the safe seats that hamper FPTP are also prevalent under AV; in Australia the only large country to employ AV, nearly 50% of seats are considered to be “safe”. Incidentally, an October 2010 Newspoll survey suggested that 57% of Australians would scrap AV in favour of FPTP, while only 37% would retain AV.

Further confusing the matter of fairness is the issue of cost: supporters of the “No” campaign have suggested that the focus of the coalition, at a time of austerity and substantial cutbacks, should be cementing economic recovery, not spending £90m on a referendum, £130m on changing the voting system should the outcome be positive, and a further £26m on educating the electorate. The “Yes” camp have openly questioned the figures, pointing out that the £130m expenditure is a drastic overestimate as electronic vote-counting machines are not necessary, and countering that, following the expenses scandal, we can’t afford not to press for change. Indeed, Clegg professed the necessity of change ‘when a system makes corruption more likely’, albeit utilising flawed logic given the probable persistence of safe seats under AV (and, indeed, the dubious correlation between safe seats and a propensity for corruption). Thus, for Norman Smith, BBC Radio 4’s Chief Political Correspondent, the referendum will hinge not on the merits of the respective voting systems, but on the perceived contest between “the people’s choice” and “the politician’s choice”; anything that might result in the happiness of politicians is sure to be ‘a huge vote loser’.

An interesting repercussion of the fairness rhetoric that underpins the power politics at play in the story of electoral reform so far is evident in the actions of the House of Lords. The unelected upper chamber was able to severely hamper progression of the bill. While concerns regarding turnout, insufficient debate, and the potential for gerrymandering were all cited as justifications for repeated filibustering, there is little doubt that the underlying motive was, in fact, opposition to the notion of electoral reform. In an act of self-preservation, Lord Strathclyde recommended that the Lords ‘respect the will of the elected Chamber’ when it became evident that MPs would not accept Lord Rooker’s 40% turnout amendment, seeking to deflect attention away from the inequitable power held by a chamber that is appointed rather than elected. Inevitably, however, this opens the debate for further constitutional reform regarding an elected House of Lords – an issue conveniently already featuring on Clegg’s reform agenda. Nonetheless, filibustering over AV indicated the difficulties that would be faced in asking the Lords to vote themselves out of existence.

Irrespective of the outcome of the referendum, claims of inequality, unfairness and partisan bias will persist from one bloc or another. Seemingly, then, when it comes to the issue of electoral politics, Voltaire’s observation continues to hold true: while the citizens of the state may be equally free, they cannot be equally powerful.