Alternative Vote is democratic. First Past The Post isn’t!

My second ex husband and father of my younger daughter has just sent her the following article explaining his very strong views on the AV referendum. I have decided to copy it here – they are his words, unedited, not mine:

As someone who has always been interested in politics, the referendum on Britain’s voting system presents me with a dilemma I have never encountered before. I have opinions about a lot of political issues: sometimes quite strong ones. But I also have the propensity of a liberal – some would see it as a weakness – to see the other side of an argument.

I strongly believe in controlling the deficit, because I don’t think we should be forcing our children to pay for our failures, but I understand the “stimulus” argument as well. I think personal tax rates of up to 50% are reasonable, but recognise the counter-argument of those who think top-earners might relocate to avoid paying tax. I like the idea of universal benefits, including free access to higher education, but also see the merits of less expensive means-tested arrangements that target the least well-off.

When it comes to voting, however, I am plagued by certainty. I’m sorry: I can’t help it! I simply don’t believe that anyone who genuinely believes in democracy could possibly argue in favour of the first past the post (FPTP) system.

The first general election I remember clearly was in February 1974. The Conservatives came top (11.9 million votes – 297 seats) and Labour “won” (11.6 million votes – 301 seats). The Liberals got 14 seats for 6.1 million votes. I concluded very speedily that my history teacher, who used to extol the virtues of British “democracy”, had somehow got it horribly wrong! 37 years later, I still think this.

The democracy test – 50% plus one

People are influenced by various factors when they cast a vote, but the primary aim is clearly to elect a party or individual. For this to work, the vote has to have a value. In an ideal world, all votes would be of equal value but in reality, no electoral system, even the most proportional one, manages to achieve that. Votes will always be wasted including those given to candidates or parties with very low levels of support, and those cast for winners in excess of what they need. But to pass any reasonable democracy test, a system must guarantee that a certain proportion of the votes cast actually have a value in electing someone. And the bare minimum is surely 50% plus one, the threshold of an Alternative Vote (AV) election in a single member seat.

Under First Past the Post (FPTP), all the votes cast for losing candidates are wasted. So too are all excess votes cast for winners. The only votes that do count are for the winner equal to one more than the score of the second placed candidate. I haven’t done the calculation, but a reasonable estimate is that around a quarter of those who turned out cast a worthwhile ballot in 2010. The other 75% needn’t have bothered. In fact, there hasn’t been a single constituency election since universal franchise where more than half the votes counted (the closest we came to it was in Ilkeston in 1931 when exactly 50% of the votes counted, the National Labour candidate beating Labour by two votes in a straight fight).

It should be obvious that a system that only gives value to a minority of votes is not democratic. So why is it that most people – including many supporters of fair voting – think otherwise? One part of the answer is that Britain has all the other essential facets of true democracy : a secret ballot; freedom to campaign and express opinions; the right to form parties and stand in elections, and so on. These are things that people long for in many other countries, and the fact that they are deeply entrenched in the British political landscape is something we should be proud of. A second explanation is that FPTP has, until now, led to regular peaceful changes of government. You can see why people might instinctively accept the equation “election leading to change of government = democracy” but this is clearly flawed when so few votes have value. The correct equation is “election leading to change of government = not dictatorship”.

First past the post falls at the first hurdle

Essentially, what Britain has at the moment is pluralism, in the sense that everyone can take part. But on the democracy test, because the vast majority of votes end up having no value, FPTP falls at the first hurdle.

David Cameron has taken this most powerful of arguments against FPTP… to argue for its retention! He makes the astonishing claim that votes have equal value under the existing rules and that AV somehow gives an unfair advantage to electors whose initial vote has no value allowing their second preference to come into play. I hope he doesn’t actually believe this. Because if he does, then it’s time we introduced basic maths tests for Prime Ministers.

Other arguments from the “no” side are equally absurd. The idea that AV will help extremists get elected comes from the same school as the Prime Minister’s “equal value” claim. “Take an argument for AV that resonates with voters, pretend it’s ours and hope no-one notices.” It is blindingly obvious that FPTP makes it easier for extremists, because the election threshold is lower.

Then there is the claim that AV is too complicated. This is deeply insulting to English and Welsh voters (the Scots and Northern Irish are already allowed to vote this way so are presumably deemed capable of it). “We think you can manage an ‘X’ but ’1,2,3′ is obviously a bit too much for you to handle!”

No-brainer

In the referendum, the choice is clearly limited by what was possible in the coalition agreement. There is no point in arguing for proportional systems that aren’t on offer. At the moment, single member representation remains sacrosanct, and this will not deliver proportionality except by pure chance. So the question is whether AV or FPTP is better for Britain? If you regard democracy as something fundamental, the answer is a no-brainer. AV delivers 650 (or 600 in the future) individual outcomes each of which is democratic in the context of the constituency in question. FPTP does not. AV doubles the number of votes that have value to 50% plus one in every seat (excluding those who decide to “drop out” of voting by expressing no further preference – which is perfectly legitimate).

So for me, the question effectively being asked in the referendum is: “Do you want democratic elections for the UK Parliament?” Incredibly, it looks increasingly likely that the British people will say “no”. A lot of people on the “yes” side seem ambivalent, half-hearted and apologetic about AV. They need to come out with all guns blazing, highlighting in particular, the grotesque way that FPTP cheats voters. Alternative Vote is greatly superior because it greatly reduces the number of pointless trips to the polling station. And, to counter the most ridiculous argument I have heard so far from the “no” side, it is a lot more “British” – assuming that we still believe “fair play” to be one of our defining national characteristics.