Another Rotten Argument Against Voting Reform

Tuesday, 15th February 2011

Iain Martin is surely right to suppose that unveiling celebrities and luvvies who support changing the voting system is a good way for the Yes to AV campaign to lose support. But it's not as if the No campaign is playing a blinder either. Today's Dreadful Argument for Retaining First Past the Post argues that we simply cannot afford to change the voting system. Apparently it will cost "up to £250 million" to do so.

Colour me sceptical. In the first place, there are the costs of the referendum itself (£91m it is claimed) and these might also be considered the cost of retaining FPTP. The best that may be said is that this is an argument against referenda, not against this particular proposal. Already, then, the actual cost of AV is down to £159m. This is accounted for by pretending we must spend £130m on "the cost of electronic counting necessitated by AV." But there is no requirement that votes must be counted electronically, AV or not. It's perfectly possible to count the ballots by hand - which is what they do in Australia. (This is also true of elections conducted by STV, as in Ireland) However, if we did switch to electronic counting it's also possible that the machines would pay for themselves in a single election and, in the longer run, actually save money.

So, actually, the No campaign's argument really rests on a notional £26m spent on "voter education". Even if true - and how expensive can it be to send postcards reminding people that they should rank candidates in order of preference? - this does not seem a crippling expense. Especially since it won't be paid until 2015.

Nor, of course, does this include the costs of FPTP, not the least of which being that millions of people find it pointless or counter-productive to express their true preferences. I'd call that a fairly hefty flaw in the system.

I'm sure there are excellent arguments for First Past the Post (as opposed to arguments against the Alternative Vote) so it would be nice to hear the No campaign make them. Otherwise there's a risk that people might be persuaded to vote Yes because the No campaign hasn't made a case that stands up to even the most modest level of scrutiny.

UPDATE: Sunder Katwala has more.

Filed under: Alternative vote (79 more articles) , Britain (738 more articles) , Electoral reform (91 more articles) , Hackery (218 more articles) , Referendum (67 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (7)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

tomdickandharry

February 15th, 2011 4:43pm Report this comment

Good post Alex! I'm very wary whenever the term 'up to' comes before a figure. My lunch today could have cost up to £500. It didn't, it cost me £2.50, but I'm not lying when I say it could've cost up to £500 (I avoided the caviar and champagne). 'Up to' usually means the number we're using is based upon several extreme assumptions and is inflated so that it can be used in a newspaper headline.

I've studied politics, written numerous essays on voting systems, and yet haven't heard a worthwhile defence of FPTP which doesn't also apply to AV.

Fergus Pickering

February 15th, 2011 5:50pm Report this comment

Only anoraks care about voting systems. They all have their favourites and they are ofen extremely complicated. AV isn't particularly, but tell me, how much difference would it make? Proportional Representation makes a considerable difference but it relies on the list system of candidates which means you may well get an MP you wouldn't piss on if he were on fire. Look at the MEPs if you can bear to - apparatchiks, shysters, nobodies.

Tom Round

February 15th, 2011 9:04pm Report this comment

Antony Green, Australia's foremost electoral commentator, has blogged on this recently at at the ABC: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/02/does-the-alternative-vote-bring-tyranny-to-australia.html.

I am collecting sets of self-contradicting "No" case arguments. For example, "AV is just a power grab by the LibDems to maximise their own influence!"/ "AV is a different system from STV which the Libs and LibDems have favoured for the past 60 years!"

John HW

February 16th, 2011 11:12am Report this comment

I wonder if it will only be 'anoraks' that care about the voting system when perhaps 30% of the vote might lead to a working majority under FPTP. There has been a downward trend in the % of the vote required to form a majority administration. It was in the high 40's in the 1950's, sliding to the low 40's in the 1980-97 period and plummeted to 35% by 2005. FPTP no longer produces legitimate governments. That's the problem.

ndm

February 16th, 2011 4:06pm Report this comment

I agree with the sentiments of John HW although I would pose the facts in a different way.

The percentage of the electorate gained by the Coalition is the same as that gained by Labout alone in 1950 (about 38%). However, the percentage gained by the Conservatives alone was about 25% last year. When three quarters of the electorate don't vote for your party you don't have much in the way of democratic legitimacy - and you certainly don't have a mandate.