There has been increasing interest in electoral reform in the UK, particularly since the 2009 Parliamentary expenses scandal. AV is one, albeit limited, response to the call for change. In the immediate aftermath of the May 2010 General Election AV has been widely discussed.
On May 10, 2010 William Hague announced that the Conservatives would agree, if the Liberal Democrats entered into coalition with his party, to a referendum on whether the UK should introduce AV. Conservative MPs would be free to campaign against a change to the present system.
The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, subsequently announced that there will be a referendum in the summer of 2011 on whether to introduce AV.
The Alternative Vote (AV)
This is a voting system intended for use in elections to a legislature. It is used in London mayoral elections, for the Australian House of Representatives and during Irish presidential elections. It is sometimes known as Instant Runoff.
Instant runoff voting is usually referred to as Alternative Voting in the United Kingdom; Preferential Voting, in Canada and Australia; and Ranked Choice Voting, or Ranked Voting in the United States.
The Alternative Vote Plus (AV+) system is a refinement of AV. This would be more acceptable to the Liberal Democrats.
The AV System Described
Under AV, candidates are still elected, as at present, from single-member constituencies under the Alternative Vote (AV) system.
Instead of putting a cross next to one person on a ballot paper as at present, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If none gets a majority of first preference votes, the candidate who comes last is eliminated. The second preference votes on the loser’s ballot papers are then given to other candidates. This continues until one candidate has more than 50% of votes and is declared the winner.
The main concern regarding the current first-past-the-post system (FPTP) has been the “waste” of votes in those constituencies regarded as being “safe seats”. The “Winner Takes All” system, it is argued, effectively disenfranchises all those people who did not vote for the winner. Most winning political parties will come to power elected only by a minority of the electorate.
Unlike the Additional Member System (AMS), AV would not achieve full proportionality, but would correct some of the disparity caused by constituency elections under FPTP.
Advantages of the AV System
- AV would require relatively minor modifications to the existing system and would maintain single-member constituencies.
- AV would be more likely than entirely proportional systems to prevent extremist parties or fringe parties from winning seats .
- AV would lessen the problems of "split voting" and the necessity of tactical voting.
Many argue that AV is too modest a reform, is not true PR, and could even lead to less proportional results as a result of exaggerating swings against an unpopular government. There is no prize, except for the winner, so it is still a "winner takes all" system, as with the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system.
Criticisms of the AV System
From FPTP supporters:
- It is more complex for voters than FPTP.
From STV (Single Transferable Vote) supporters:
- It is not sufficiently proportional.
- It is too likely, as with FPTP, to lead to one-party government.
- It will not eliminate "safe seats".
From AMS supporters:
- It is not proportional enough.
- It is too likely to lead to one-party government.
Generally seats in the House of Commons still don’t reflect the overall share of the vote. In some cases MPs will win seats on second and third preference votes without being anyone’s first choice. MPs could get a sound numerical mandate, but a flimsy moral one.
Reaction to Possible Changes to the Voting System in the UK
The Jenkins commission on electoral reform reported in 1998 recommending changes. The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, praised Lord Jenkins for his work and gave the report a cautious welcome.
However, leading figures in the Cabinet at the time (e.g. Home Secretary Jack Straw, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, Chancellor Gordon Brown, Margaret Beckett, the Labour National Executive Committee) all strongly opposed any reform of the voting system and effectively blocked the chance of any change.
The report was welcomed by the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party although at the time, the Liberal Democrats remained largely committed to Single Transferable Vote (STV). Currently, the Liberal Democrats wish to see the implementation of the AV+ system if STV cannot be achieved.
David Cameron, the current Leader of the Conservative Party, declared on May 26, 2009 that his party did not support the AV system, or any form of proportional representation, as it would create "weak governments".
In June 2009, it was reported by the BBC that the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was considering changing the electoral system as part of a package of constitutional reform.
On May 7, 2010, Gordon Brown offered the Liberal Democrats a referendum for an Alternative Vote system, if they agreed to support the Labour Party remaining in government.
On the same day Mr Cameron offered the Liberal Democrats the possibility of setting up an all-Party committee to reserch alternative approaches to the voting system.
Three days later (May 10, 2010) the Conservatives changed their position and offered the Liberal Democrats the prospect of a referendum on whether to introduce AV for elections to the House of Commons. This referendum will take place during the summer of 2011, probably on 5 May .
Readers may be interested in an updated version of this article published on 15 May, 2010.
How the parties would have fared in May 2010 under different voting systems.
Martin Oldfield - Martin Oldfield I have worked as a Tour Leader taking groups of travellers to a range of countries in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and ...
Join the Conversation