“HE needs bulletproof vests, not an alternative voting system,” say the posters that oppose the proposed change. There are many arguments why we should reject the alternative voting (AV) system, but this is not one of them.
Indeed, it is a shame, really, that the anti-AV campaign has felt the need to resort to such simplistic and erroneous arguments so early in the debate, because it doesn’t need to.
If AV is the right system for Britain to adopt, if it is really going to improve our democracy the way the pro-AV campaigners feel it will, then we should adopt it whether it costs millions of pounds or not.
So this is not about a choice between bulletproof vests for soldiers on the frontline and a new voting system, this is a choice between our existing system and a new one. It is as simple and as straightforward as that, and anyone who tries to tie it in with protection for our armed forces is doing the whole debate a disservice.
Donate to us: support independent, intelligent, in-depth Scottish journalism from just 3p a day
The irony is, though, that the anti-AV campaign doesn’t need to be sly about its arguments. All it needs to do to stand a good chance of winning the debate is to point out that the current system actually works pretty well. Here are five arguments they could use to see off the pro-AV campaigners in the referendum in May: 1 – The current system works. First-past-the-post (FPTP) might not be the most equitable system to divvy-up seats, because third parties tend to be under-represented when all the votes are counted and the seats are allocated. But, whether it is the most fair system or not, it works. FPTP has, generally, delivered the outcome the country wanted to see. From the 18 years of Conservative government to the 13 years of Labour rule, elections have – by and large – reflected the will of the people. Even the current coalition model, although it has been much derided, actually reflects the slightly hesitant view of the electorate going into last year’s election. Far better, it would seem, to have a system which reflects the mood of those key swing voters who carry with them the mood of the nation, than to hand it those candidates who come third, fourth or fifth. 2 – FPTP usually delivers strong government. This is tied in to the way our current system tends to reflect the mood of the country. This current coalition is very unusual in British politics. For most of the last century, the country has had strong, authoritative administrations which have been able to govern decisively for years: unlike the situation in many other European countries with proportional representation. 3 – AV is not actually backed by any major political party in Britain. It is difficult to overestimate how important this is. If the system is so good, why are none of the parties actually in favour of it? We are being offered AV because of a fudge, a compromised hammered out between parties, none of which wants to introduce it as the country’s favoured voting system. It is appalling that we are being asked to vote on a system nobody thinks is the best one for us. 4 – The real argument here is between FPTP and single transferable vote (STV). The Lib Dems want STV, not AV. If that is what they want, then we should have a real and proper debate about the merits of a fair system of proportional representation and the current winner-takes-all system. That is the real argument. If the Lib Dems really want STV, they should fight for it and hold out for it, and not accept being saddled with a shoddy compromise. 5 – There is no reason to change the system if it’s not broken. I worked at Westminster during the dying days of the John Major government, which had such a narrow majority it risked defeat on every vote. The precarious nature of that administration reflected the public mood and worked at keeping the government from doing anything too outrageous. I also had the opportunity – which not enough people do – of seeing the House of Lords at work on a daily basis. A lot of the commentators who now have a go at the Commons voting system were the same ones who took great delight in lambasting the Lords, without ever taking the time to study what the Lords were doing , or how they were doing it. I make no apology for saying this: the Lords worked. I saw it at first-hand, covering debates on a range of issues when no one else was paying the chamber any attention whatsoever. The Lords did what it did well. It was a revising chamber which revised, amended and criticised government legislation, usually adopting a thoroughly laudable non-party and non-partisan approach. Yes, there were some doddery old fools there and, yes, others were just there to pick up their allowances – but there were also many brilliant minds. The chamber contained astute former statesmen, philosophers, academics and experts in many fields, all of whom were peers of quality and depth who refused to be brow-beaten by the party whips. Yet, despite all that, it became somehow an accepted political truism that the Lords needed to be reformed, to be changed, to be turned into an all-elected second chamber. This is a development which – when it happens – will ruin forever the extraordinarily important place that the Lords plays in British political life. It has almost reached the same situation with our voting system. “It’s not fair, so it has to go,” is the argument. But I don’t buy that and I hope the voters don’t buy it either. No, FPTP might not be the most fair system in much the same way as an appointed upper chamber is not the most democratic way of running a legislature, but they both work. Indeed, they both work really, really well, so the bottom line has to be: if it ain’t broke, then there is no reason, no reason at all, why anyone should make any kind of attempt (let alone a half-arsed one that no one supports) to fix it.Donate to us: support independent, intelligent, in-depth Scottish journalism from just 3p a day
Related posts: