We found the website of Fair Vote Canada... and it appears that we're vindicated entirely in damming AV.
(It also appears that they patronise voters far less than either the British 'Yes' or 'No' campaigns, but that's a different story).
In a special report on AV prepared in August 2009 (long before Clegg and his ideas came along), Fair Vote Canada wrote: "AV is absolutely inappropriate for parliamentary elections where the objective is to give equal representation to all voters."
In a sub-section which answers suggestions that AV is a stepping stone towards real fair votes (Proportional Representation), Fair Vote Canada write:
Is switching from our current voting system to AV for parliamentary elections likely to be a step toward fair voting in the foreseeable future?
No. Societies rarely change their voting systems for parliamentary, legislature or council elections. When those scarce opportunities arise by popular demand, proposals for cosmetic change are diversionary and may make the legislatures even less representative. Some established politicians are only too willing to misdirect public opinion in the name of reform. Democrats must be constant in the demand for fair democratic representation for every citizen and nothing less.
As for UKIP:
Would AV help small parties get established and win seats?
Not at all. AV would make it easy for voters to give smaller parties their first choice vote and their second choice to a larger party with a better chance of winning a seat. It is formalized strategic voting. But actual AV election results show that supporters of small parties are no more likely to gain representation with AV than with the current system.
AV exaggerates the tendency of the current system to direct all voters into a choice between two big-tent political parties.
The full Fair Vote Canada assessment of AV can be found in pdf format HERE.
Want fairer votes?
Then say 'No 2 AV'.
The referendum is for either AV or FPTP. If you vote no, you are de facto voting for FPTP. Which is even more unfair than AV with all the need for tactical voting and in how it forces people to not even vote at all for smaller parties (thus hugely under-representing even how many people would make them their first choice). This makes your final two lines somewhat bizarre.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I can just imagine how any call for a referendum on a proportional system (which is the logical conclusion of what you suggest would be a better system) will go in future if AV is rejected. "The voters have already had their say and prefer FPTP" etc.
Most people who want proportionality ultimately support AV as a good first step to this.
"The referendum is for either AV or FPTP."
ReplyDeleteBut that's not true, is it? That's spin. People are voting 'Yes' or 'No' to AV.
"This makes your final two lines somewhat bizarre."
But that's not an argument, Mark.
What percentage of seats have changed anywhere in the world on the basis of second preference votes?
How many seats has a party finishing fourth with 5% of the vote taken as a result of AV, anywhere in the world, ever?
If you're arguing for AV on the basis of fair votes, why - seriously - are we not justbeing offered proportional representation in the first place?
Would you not accept that changing one unfair system for another unfair system is completely pointless, based on the real statistics and evidence accumulated by the cross-party democracy group Fair Vote Canada in their report?
You've made some valued points here. However, what about all those Tory voters who would vote UKIP as their first or second preference? Wouldn't this increase our vote share? The point I want to make though is that AV is fairer than FPTP. Mark did make a point about either it's a vote for AV or a vote for FPTP. If we vote no, then what are the chances of further electoral reforms in the future?
ReplyDelete"The point I want to make though is that AV is fairer than FPTP."
ReplyDeleteOkay, that's great as a sentence. Now tell me in what way it is fairer.
"If we vote no, then what are the chances of further electoral reforms in the future?"
Let's look at it another way.
If the country votes yes, what is going to happen to make further electoral reforms come sooner?
And doesn't the (very thin) argument about 'stepping stones' just demonstrate that AV is just as crap as FPTP and so, in a question which asks you whether you actually want AV, the answer - truthfully - has to be 'no'..?
I repeat what Fair Vote Canada say:
"Societies rarely change their voting systems for parliamentary, legislature or council elections. When those scarce opportunities arise by popular demand, proposals for cosmetic change are diversionary and may make the legislatures even less representative."
Fair Vote Canada does not endorse either side in the UK referendum on AV.
ReplyDeleteIn a more recent post, we point out that "context is everything", and go on to note that "Our friends at the Electoral Reform Society (http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/), who have been promoting proportional representation since 1884, have taken the position that they must seize the bird in the hand, oppose the status quo, and support AV in the referendum."
In Canada we are fighting to avoid being put in the position of choosing between AV and FPTP. Were we in your position, it is not clear that we could bring ourselves to vote for the status quo. We don't envy you such a choice.
Whether or not AV turns out to be "a step in the right direction", it is not likely to be good for UKIP in the short run.
Good luck!
Wayne Smith
Executive Director
Fair Vote Canada
@ Wayne Smith
ReplyDeleteGoodness... I'm very thrilled to have an intervention from someone as high up in the chain in an organisation such as yours!
I agree entirely that the choice between the status quo and AV is a very difficult choice to make. It is a shame that we couldn't have been offered proportional representation, if the argument is for fair votes and equal representation for all.
I do, however, have to pinch my nose and vote for the status quo. Alas.
The most important point from your post, particularly as this is a UKIP supporting blog, is the last comment and I am grateful in the extreme for your thoughts on the matter.
Thank you for taking the time to engage with this humble blog - I really appreciate it.
TTC x