Why I fear this Alternative Vote proposal is another gerrymander

18th May, 2010 10:47 am

Ballot Vote

By Stephen Newton

I’ve been a supporter of comprehensive constitutional reform – not just the voting system – since the 1983 election, when I was 14. Back then the Conservatives won less than 34,000 votes for each elected MP, Labour won more than 40,000 for each MP and the Liberal/SDP Alliance more than 338,000 votes for each MP. It somehow took nearly ten times as many voters to elect a Liberal as a Tory and Thatcher had an unassailable Commons majority of 144 with a minority of the vote.

I was disgusted and a few years later became a founder member of the Liberal Democrats, only to leave in the late 1990s as the Manchester party plotted to undermine that city’s Commonwealth Games with fabricated stories to scare people off Labour.

Yet while I still yearn for a more proportional electoral system, I am not convinced I can vote for the Alternative Vote in the upcoming referendum and I’m shocked the Lib Dems asked Labour to introduce it without a referendum.

The Alternative Vote is not a system of proportional representation. It will generate more Lib Dem MPs, but is very unlikely to support smaller parties (check out the Electoral Reform Society projections). That’s because to win an AV election, you really need to come first or second on first preferences. The Greens, for example, tend to come third or fourth and would be eliminated early on. They could get 10-15% of the popular vote and have no more MPs under the Alternative Vote.

Given its flaws, the Alternative Vote is not even Liberal Democrat policy. While their statements on voting systems have been increasingly vague in recent years, preferring ambiguous calls for ‘fair votes’, they have always supported the Single Transferable Vote (STV) and multi-member constituencies. This is also the favoured system of the Electoral Reform Society and all the other leading campaign groups.

So when the Jenkins Commission into electoral reform failed to back STV in 1998 it was a surprise that took the wind out of the reform movement’s sails. Crucially, Jenkins did not recommend AV, but AV+ whereby parliament would be topped up with MPs from under represented parties. This idea, which would probably create additional Green and a couple of UKIP MPs, is not in the Lib Con proposal.

It gets worse. The coalition has also adopted the Tory idea of reducing the number of constituencies in Scotland, Wales and the inner cities (where Cameron has failed to win support). That is to say, the coalition appears only to support reforms that suit members of the coalition.

Set this in the context of the 55% lock in. This rushed legislation, that even the most prominent supporters admit transfers power to the monarchy, tries to stabilise the coalition by making Cameron virtually unsackable. Far from the much hyped reforming hung parliament, this is quickly emerging as a gerrymandering Lib Con.

The coalition says we have five years to the next election, but won’t take the time to offer the country a new constitutional settlement of which we can all be proud.

Supporters of real liberal democracy need to stand up and say no to partial reforms that suit narrow party interests much more than they suit any democratic agenda. Say no to this obscene gerrymandering in the name of liberal democracy. Say yes making Britain a world beacon for liberal democracy.

Comments are closed

Latest

  • Comment Featured Why I introduced the Assisted Dying Bill

    Why I introduced the Assisted Dying Bill

    My main reason for introducing the Assisted Dying Bill is simple. It’s a straightforward question of choice and dignity: with appropriate, strong safeguards, terminally ill adults of sound mind should be legally allowed to choose to have assistance to end their own lives. I value life, and I do understand that some people believe very deeply that ending one’s own life is always wrong. Nevertheless, the depth and sincerity of their belief should not mean that they deny choice to […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Leadership candidates slam Cameron for inaction over refugee crisis

    Leadership candidates slam Cameron for inaction over refugee crisis

    The Labour leadership candidates have this morning weighed in on the refugee crisis, in which it’s estimated over 2,500 people have died since the start of this year. Yesterday, David Cameron made the following statement, in which he claimed the following: “We have taken a number of genuine asylum seekers from Syrian refugee camps and we keep that under review, but we think the most important thing is to try to bring peace and stability to that part of the world. I […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured It will take heart and head to win again

    It will take heart and head to win again

    When I joined the Labour Party in 1979, age 17, I had no idea that for the next 18 years, Labour would be in opposition to a Tory government. As a young activist, I seemed to be on a different demo every week. Thatcher was in power and there was no shortage of worthwhile causes. Marches for jobs, marches against the cuts, Anti-apartheid, the Anti-Nazi League, women against violence against women,… It was a long list. I was full of […]

    Read more →
  • Comment We have the money to make Labour a movement – we can’t lose this moment

    We have the money to make Labour a movement – we can’t lose this moment

    Jessie J may have tried to argue it’s not about the money, money, money, but anyone facing a well-funded opposition at an election knows all too well the difference it makes. One aspect of the leadership contest yet to be fully discussed is the cash that it has generated for Labour. The combination of the volume of people paying the supporters rate, the increase in membership and the levy paid by leadership candidates means a serious amount of money will […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Leadership matters

    Leadership matters

    This week has really shown up the petty squabbling in the Labour leadership contest for what it is – inward looking and small. Because when it matters, the Labour Party has united around the issue of giving much needed asylum to refugees. Our differences may seem big – and sometimes they are . They do matter. But the gulf of difference between the way the whole of the Labour Party has reacted to what is needed and the nasty, small […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit