Last chance for the "nothing" referendum

According to news reports the AV referendum debate is set to escalate as we move to within 48-hours of polling. Well, quite honestly something needed to happen because as lacklustre political issues go, this one arguably takes the cake.

Apparently Paul Boateng will call for Chris Huhne to resign because he has argued has expressed anger in recent days over the way the No lobby - a cross-party group which shares some financial backers with the Conservatives - has conducted its campaign. Well now, that’s going to happen, isn’t it. I mean, a minister who is a member of a party that hasn’t been in office of any kind since 1915 is naturally going to relinquish that power.

The “Yes” campaign have been little better. In a platform that will be shared by that great political luminary, Eddie Izzard and Lord Paddy Ashdown, they will claim that politicians with safe seats under the current First Past The Post system earn more money from second jobs and that reform would force MPs to spend more time working for their constituents.

How naïve do these people think we are? Do they truly believe what they are saying? Because if they do then I am very worried. The reality is far more likely that whichever system is adopted, it will little difference to the work output of many MPs. The facts of the matter are that many MPs, of all political persuasions, work very hard for their constituents and work long hours in the service of the people who voted them into office.

Of course there are exceptions and we regularly hear examples of how some of our elected representatives fail to attend Westminster regularly. Gordon Brown and David Miliband have been less than regular faces over the past few months, but I very much doubt AV would have forced them into the chamber. In fact, the evidence would indicate their majorities would be slightly larger under this mongrelised version of proportional representation so, using the “Yes” analysis they would be even less likely to turn up.

The hard reality is that the referendum has failed to engage the hearts and minds of voters. Like many activists I have been spending the last three weeks knocking on doors and many voters are not even aware a referendum is even taking place. With only two full days of campaigning left, both camps are desperate to engage with voters and get their supporters to the polling station.

Unfortunately, when the votes are finally cast and counted it is more than likely the poll will be less than 50% of the electorate – leaving it open for both sides to argue the conclusion is not a full representation of the people’s will.

Far from finally solving the problem of whether or not the UK will adopt AV, the referendum is likely to create more questions than answers.

A good reason to vote "Yes"

According to research undertaken by ippr the alternative vote system would not hand undue influence to the BNP. Their study looked at results in all constituencies if the last election had been run under AV. Researchers at the think-tank ran a series of tests on two different facets of the claim by those who oppose the move to AV that the BNP would be able to "pick a winner". IPPR looked at whether there could be a mass transfer of BNP supporters' votes pushing one candidate over the 50% threshold, and that BNP voters' second preferences could overturn a favourite and help someone placed second or even third to come first. The research comes as both the “No” and “Yes” campaigns mark the four-week countdown to the AV referendum. The “No” campaign have previously aired concerns that a change in the voting system would boost minority parties, with their campaign director, Matthew Elliott, saying recently AV would "[give] BNP supporters more power at the ballot box". In an AV system, voters rank candidates instead of voting only for their chosen one. If no single candidate has secured 50% of the vote immediately, the candidate who has received fewest first preference votes is eliminated and the second preferences of their voters are redistributed to other candidates. The “No” campaign fears the second preferences of those eliminated – likely to be those who back minority parties – could go on to have profound effects further down the reallocation process. They have published a list of 35 seats in which the BNP's share of the vote was greater than the winner's margin of victory. Now researchers have looked at this assertion in two ways. They show there to be 56 seats where the share of the BNP vote exceeds the gap between the first-placed candidate and the 50% threshold they need to cross and where, if all BNP supporters transferred their second preferences as a bloc, it could help the lead candidate win. They then showed that the 2010 British election survey – which asked 13,356 people to take part in a mock election run under their AV system – found the number of seats where the second preference of those voting BNP push a winning candidate over the 50% threshold fell to 25. However, the IPPR researchers demonstrated that in all 25 seats the second preferences of the BNP are not "decisive" and the second preferences of others just as critical. They explain that in the 25, the first-placed candidate is within "spitting distance" of the finishing line and the average gap between the first and second placed candidate is 24.52%, which they say is "larger than the share of the vote of any third-placed candidate whose votes would be needed to change the result". "In other words there is no chance that BNP second preference votes could alter the outcome in any of these seats. In all of them the winner on first preferences will be the winner once votes have been reallocated in subsequent rounds irrespective of the role played by BNP votes." The IPPR researchers also dissected the idea that BNP voters could change the balance of power in constituencies by pushing a second or third place candidate into first place and over the 50% threshold on the back of its transferred votes. Results from the 2010 election show that there is not one constituency where the BNP vote share is larger than the margin between 50% and that received by the runner-up. Their researchers say: "Given the marginality and distance from 50% for both the first and second placed candidates it is true that BNP supporters' second or third preferences will be counted in the 35 seats listed by the 'No to AV' campaign. "However, the BNP vote is still very small in each of these seats, averaging a vote share of just 4.5% – yet the average distance from 50% for the winning candidate is 11.3% and 14.2% for the runner-up. Even if we assume all BNP preferences go to a single candidate (which they wouldn't) they would still require more than twice the number of BNP supporters to win under AV. BNP voters cannot therefore single-handedly change a result." The IPPR details some high profile cases: Barking The IPPR said: “The constituency [in] which the BNP has its highest proportion in vote share, it is a clear safe seat for Labour achieving over 50% of all votes and very unlikely requiring the need for 2nd preferences. All additional party votes summed – including the Liberal Democrats – would not be enough to elect the Conservative runner-up”. Morley and Outwood IPPR argued: "The BNP additional vote preferences would be counted but as the race is highly marginal – both winner and runner-up maintaining votes shares in the mid-30s – the race will be decided by the 16.76% Liberal Democrat supporters whose second preferences are more likely to go to Labour than the Conservatives." Burnley On this constituency ippr argued: "The race is between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The BNP additional vote preferences will likely be counted but the 16.61% of Conservative voters will be the decisive group who strongly favour the Liberal Democrats over Labour thus, likely retaining the seat in Liberal Democrat hands". The “No” campaign maintain that BNP voters will still have undue influence in any AV election compared with those who vote for one of the three main parties. Recent research by them showed that if the 2010 general election had been run under AV, in 70% of seats those who backed the three main parties would have been unlikely to get a second vote. Launching that research, Matthew Elliott said that in some constituencies supporters of the BNP would have had their preferences counted six times before a winner was declared. All of which assumes that those second, third, fourth and fifth preferences would go to other extremist parties. The reality is the far right are extremely sectarian and many BNP voters would rather vote Labour or Conservative than put their second vote with an NF candidate. Given this, there seems little to worry about regarding the distribution of BNP supporter second preferences. With a few weeks to go the “No” campaign has been insipid and fundamentally dishonest. They have so failed to answer the claims made by the “Yes” campaign that a move to AV would produce a fairer electoral system. This blog has been reluctant to support the “Yes” campaign because of my passionate belief that the correct voting system would have been the Single Transferrable Vote STV). This is not going to happen, so we must make full use of the opportunity to dump the defunct First Passed The Post system and change it to a more democratic approach that allows voters the opportunity to elect members of parliament who more fully represent the views of the majority. Given the options, the Alternative Vote is the only way forward and I would urge readers to vote “Yes” on May 5th

Who cares about AV

Now I confess I have a very low boredom threshold. I seldom watch TV and last night, whilst millions enjoyed watching Comic Relief, I read, listened to music, played a little myself and painted. Not that I am anti the idea of giving money to charity, I’m not. I just don’t see why I have to endure the idea of watching people who aren’t funny and endure them making fools of themselves for hours .
I admit it, as the years go on, I have become a grumpy old man. One of my pet hates on the blogosphere at the moment is all the fuss being made about AV. Those who are ‘for’ it keep trying to tell me it will save the planet, restore justice to the oppressed, feed the hungry and bring a new level of democracy to our voting system.

On the other hand, the “no” lobby insist any change from FPTP will bring instability, economic and political chaos and the emergence of Beelzebub and the Hordes of the Night.

Call me cynical, but I don’t think either side is really telling me the way it is. In fact, the way I see it is that if we had been allowed to vote AV in the last election, we would have still had a Tory/ Lib Dem coalition, except the Conservatives would have had a few less seats. As for previous elections, well the evidence from what I have read has tended to lean a little more favourably towards Labour, but not by any huge amount.

So, it seems they want us to vote on an election system where one option (FPTP) will result in the election of Candidate A and the other system (AV) will bring the election of Candidate A. If that’s the case,, why bother to change it?

The whole thing just seems like one big joke – with no real choice being offered in the first place. It’s not even as if the population are chomping at the bit and saying they want change. Sure, the Lib Dems have been spouting on about it for years, but until they came to power, they were all in favour of AV. Since Citizen Dave gave a couple of them seats around the Cabinet table they have watered down their views so much, its hard to spot which one of them isn’t a Tory. Gone are all the ideals of true electoral reform and instead they call for a wishy washy voting system that marginally favours their own politics.

The pro-lobby are probably hoping that holding the referendum on May 5th will help their cause, because people will be voting in local council elections at the same time. But let’s not forget that, on average, only about 40% of voters turn out on Election Day. So, whatever the result, it isn’t going to offer a true representation of the “people’s will” anyway.

Not that this will stop either side when the result is declared. If the “Yes” lobby win they will hail it as a positive result for democracy and if “No’s” succeed, they will argue their campaign has been vindicated – this is even though as many as two-thirds of the electorate may not vote.

The whole thing is boring and let’s faces it, pretty meaningless. The end product will largely be the same whatever the result and will put back the real opportunity for true electoral for a generation. Courtesy of Clegg selling out the people will not have the opportunity to consider the Single Transferrable Vote – the one option that could have changed the face of British politics.As it is, Clegg wants us to keep the same corrupt system, or replace it with a mechanism that will guarantee votes for extreme parties will be far more status than they deserve.

No wonder Cameron gets on so well with him.

So, on referendum day which way will I vote? Well in an ideal world, I wouldn’t, but the facts of the matter are that I will go to the polling station to vote against my local Tory councillors. As a result the election officials will almost certainly give me a voting slip for the referendum. Now, I have never spoiled a ballot paper in my life – it always seems a total waste of time. So, I will have to choose – and neither of them appeal to me.

I guess in the end I will probably go along with AV, but not because I like it. I don’t, but I like FPTP even less. I have spent large chunks of my life calling for electoral reform and have been an advocate of STV for over 40 years. To have it taken away from me by a fellow supporter of the system (Nick Clegg) is an unforgivable act of treachery.

I hope history rewards him appropriately with the argument that he was probably one of the weakest leaders the Liberal/ Social Democratic movement have seen since the days of the Whigs.

If the Lib Dems have any sense of self-respect they will dump him and the other quislings in the Tory Cabinet at the earliest opportunity