Saying No to AV is not just about Nick Clegg

By Dave Roberts

A few weeks ago, my wife and I were asked if we’d be supporting a change to the electoral system for Westminster elections. I confidently replied that, as a progressive, I would definitely be supporting the Alternative Vote: even though it’s not a perfect system it seemed fairer overall than the current system. My wife, however, declared she’d be voting ‘No’ partly in order to give Nick Clegg a bloody nose. This prompted me to get on my self-righteous hobby horse and accuse her of irresponsibility – the future of our voting system was surely too important for her to treat the decision in such a flippant way.

But as the weeks have progressed, I’ve gradually and decisively changed my mind. For the past 15 years I have worked as a campaigner in some of the most marginal seats in the country. Many were won and a few were lost but throughout those campaigns I hankered after a fairer voting system – one that would enable people to vote in favour of what they wanted, not just against something, or for the least worse option. And it was that experience that initially drove me towards supporting the Yes campaign.

My conversion to the No camp began during the Barnsley by-election where I briefly chatted with a member of the shadow cabinet who was opposed to AV. His case was – why should some people have two votes while others only have one? At the time this seemed a poor argument and I dismissed it. However the conversation planted a seed of doubt in my mind.

What eventually convinced me that AV is the wrong choice was the dawning realisation that in very marginal seats, where no one gets a clear 50% of the vote, and the two leading candidates are neck and neck, each campaign would have to design its messaging to appeal to the supporters of minor parties that would be the first to be knocked out. Indeed, this is the argument pro-AV campaigners are using in the system’s favour. In some constituencies this might initially be local independents and maverick causes, but examining the voting history of many marginal seats demonstrates that the minor parties whose supporters’ second votes could swing an election include UKIP, the BNP, and the Greens.

For example, in South Dorset in 2001 Labour won by 153 votes, or 0.4%, UKIP received 913 votes or 2%. In that election – where William Hague ran an anti European national campaign – one can imagine that most UKIP voters would have naturally supported the Tories as a second preference. The result in South Dorset would either have been a Labour loss or a campaign in which Labour would have been under pressure to adjust the party’s doorstep messages on Europe or immigration in order to appeal to the UKIP voters. In 2005 the seat was held by Labour with a majority of 3.7%, yet under AV it would have been supporters of UKIP, Legalise Cannabis and Respect that decided the result on second preference votes.

Frankly, I do not want an electoral system in which, in order to win a marginal seat, the Labour Party has to appeal not just to UKIP and the Greens but also the likes of Respect, the BNP or even Legalise Cannabis, the Wessex Regionalists or the Personality and Rational Thinking? Yes! Party.

Changing to AV will give disproportionate influence to minor parties, and while there is little chance of these parties actually winning seats under AV or First Past the Post, in marginal seats they will have a much greater impact on the style and substance of a campaign. While the Yes campaign argues that this is a good thing, giving equal importance to the views of those maverick voters, I want a party that campaigns on its own values and doesn’t slide into pandering to the beliefs and values of every eccentric or single issue voter.

This is not just about the BNP – there are many political parties and individuals who contest elections every year. While some argue that AV is the best system to avoid extremists winning seats, I believe that those with extreme political views should be beaten by debate and campaigning rather than by fixing the electoral system, or by running fudgy campaigns where no one dare say what they truly think for fear of giving decisive voting power to those with marginal views.

So I will be voting No to AV – it’s the only responsible choice. And, as my wife pointed out – as a bonus, it might really annoy Nick Clegg.