AV: No referendum necessary

When Labour's 1997 manifesto pledged a referedum on the voting system used to elect the Commons, it was in the specific context of a "proportional alternative" to be established by an Indepdent Commission (though when this body reported under that chairmanship of Roy Jenkins recommending the proportional AV+ system, it was effectively sidelined).  The case for a referendum was predicated on the understanding that the alternative would herald a substantial shift in the political culture of the nation: it would require widespread boundary changes; it would change the dynamic of the single member - constituency link; in reflecting the real balance of support between parties it would limit the capacity of single political parties to form an executive exlusively from within its own ranks, requiring a more consensual and co-operative style of politics; and would allow smaller parties greater access to representation.  In total, changing the voting system to a proportional system would have a substantial impact on the way democracy functions, and thus it was felt that the decision should rest with voters themselves.

The Alternative Vote, whilst it might in some ways valuably augment the present FPTP voting system and require a shift in the methods of voting from the use of X's to numerical preferences, would not substantially impact upon the culture of our politics.  Yes, each elected MP would require the support of a majority of those voting, and it would put an end to the fear of votes "splitting" to unintended effect.  However, it would not have the kind of radical impact of a PR system.  The single member consitutency link/monopoly would remain intact.  There would still not be a situation where all votes counted equally.  Seats would still not be distributed in proportion to votes received, so it would still be entirely possible for a party have an exclusive grip on government with a minority share of the vote.  And it would not help to extend the range of parties represented at Westminster. 

So why is Jack Straw still insisting that if Labour was to bring forward proposals on AV, it would still b ebound by a referenum promise made on an entirely different basis?  The government didn't hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty for precisely this reason.  Is it really worth the expense of a national referendum and the effort to build support for a measure which, though in some sense a step forward from FPTP, hardly offers the basis for the real reforms our political system needs?  Why not include a promise to bring in AV in the next manifesto, and include provision for voters to determine whether there is still an ongoing need for a proportional element?

Comments

[Glenn Simpson]

You are right Michael. If we don't introduce PR before 2010 the progressive centre left will probably be out of power for another 18 years. What a prospect. It should be a no-brainer for the Government.

[Neil Harding]

Unfortunately, this government has no brains.

Tom Harries MP demonstrates the unthinking nature of Labour MPs on this issue. He claims no-one cares about PR and we should continue to offer people tax bribes and vacuous arguments for 42 days detention. 23% in the polls suggests he is an idiot.

If no-one cares about the electoral system we use - then lets change it to PR and watch all the fuss! The truth is people do care - they just have not had the travesty of the present system explained. Most people think you need 50% of the votes to win 50% of the seats - in fact it is just 35%. How low will this have to go before Tom Harries realises this is NOT democracy.