AV refuseniks need to wake up

By David Talbot

The ideal electoral system produces governments that are perfectly representative, immaculately accountable and impeccably effective. Such an ideal electoral system does not exist, but one thing has become clear – first past the post is a broken, rotten system that voters ought to reject in the coming referendum. And yet, startlingly, the attitude of some to this most important of debates about our very democracy is either sheer ambivalence or outright opposition.

The writing has been on the wall for first-past-the-post for many a decade. It was possible to justify in an era when politics was essentially a two-horse race between the Conservatives and Labour. This ceased to be true long ago. At the last two elections, a third of voters rejected both the main parties only to find their voices grotesquely under-represented in the commons. The 2010 result was Labour’s second worst at a general election since 1918, while David Cameron moved into Number 10 with a smaller proportion of support from the electorate than any previous Conservative Prime Minister. This was not a surprise or a one-off. It was the culmination of a decades-long movement against the two bigger parties. Our antiquated and unfair voting system now looks eccentric – even downright fraudulent – compared with most of the rest of the democratic world.

But some still rigidly adhere to this most unjust of electoral systems. The last election is was case in point. Exhortations not to “waste your vote” and arguments that if you vote for X you’ll get Y all served to reinforce the message that the current system is designed to deny people choice. Tactical voting is not unique to the first-past-the-post system. But it is massively encouraged by it.

Given the current poll ratings for the Lib Dems it would be tempting for Labour to duck the issue, knowing that old-style politics might well deliver a mortal blow to the coalition. There is an immediate prize in disrupting the coalition; hostility to reform among some Labour tribalists has certainly been swollen by their bitterness over the Lib Dems entering a coalition with the Tories. Whatever the immediate gains, resisting reform would be a betrayal, and in time Labour would pay a high price for defending the old politics.

There are weaknesses in the AV system, but the question people should ask is whether it is an improvement on first-past-the-post. The answer is yes. It allows choice. It requires every MP to get the support of at least half their constituents; only a third of MPs (216) have majority support in their constituencies – the lowest proportion in British political history. It categorically ensures that no candidate can be elected who is actively opposed by a majority of voters.

AV is on the table because of a unique set of circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated any time soon. At this precise moment you are faced with a choice between AV and the status quo. There can be no fence-sitters in the debate. The alternative is to cower, and denounce the referendum as a distraction. A rare and great opportunity for progress would be missed.

No country adopted the first-past-the-post system during the twentieth century. The political class would like this referendum to be pointless. All the more reason for us to ensure it isn’t. Reformers in all parties must shed their reticence and campaign for a yes to AV in May.