Home > Alex Massie

Thursday 23 February 2012

AV will not help the BNP and everyone's vote counts the same.

Wednesday, 30th March 2011

The Alternative Vote isn't a great voting system but neither is First Past the Post. I suspect inertia and boredom and a lack of outrage will help swing the day for the status quo in the end. Neither side has impressed during the campaign thus far. Claims that AV is some kind of elixir that will "clean-up" British politics are absurd. But at least the Yes campaign is, on the whole, only peddling pie-in-the-sky. They're not, again on the whole, trying to frighten voters. Their exagerrations seem a little less desperate than those made by the No campaign.

Take Baroness Warsi's nonsensical claim that AV will somehow help* the BNP. As it happens, FPTP doesn't help them much either and you'd need to switch to an Israeli-style system to give the BNP a real boost. Nevertheless, were AV adopted for council elections the BNP would find it much harder to win any seats at all since, if nothing else, AV raises the bar of minimal acceptability to a level the BNP cannot realistically hope to clear.

Nor is it true, despite what the No campaign alleges, that some people's votes are counted more often than others when AV is used to decide elections. This, one must admit, is an ingenious argument since it has a superficial and slippery appeal: why should the third and fourth preferences of some voters count when only my first preference has a chance of counting?

But, as Norm points out with admirable clarity, this is a specious argument. AV is just a balloon debate. Each candidate makes the case for his retention. Everyone votes. The candidate with the lowest number of votes is ejected. Then everyone votes again and another candidate is removed from consideration. People who supported these candidates continue to vote in the subsequent rounds but so do the people who backed candidates who easily avoided ejection. The only difference is that AV uses a single ballot paper to mark these preferences so all the rounds of voting are completed in one go. Which is why it's called Instant Run-Off in the United States. Because that's what it is. If there are, say, four rounds of counting needed to push someone about 50% then everyone's vote** is counted four times. The only votes for which that would not be true are those cast in favour of eliminated candidates that do not express subsequent preferencs.

Like I say, AV is scarcely perfect and can't deliver some of the gains its advocates promise. But that doesn't excuse the No campaign's preference for hysterical and dishonest arguments against it. Then again, the main merits of FPTP are that it is so simple even voters can understand it and it's the system that's been used in most British seats for some time now. Custom is not a bad thing and often reason enough to reject change but let's not pretend that FPTP has much more than that going for it.

*Warsi also claims that fascists are helped if their third or fourth preferences can help a candidate to victory. But this happens already! There must be some people who'd quite fancy voting BNP but don't because they know that the goons can't win. So they vote Labour or Tory instead as the "Most acceptable candidate with a chance of winning".

**The better argument against AV, though it doesn't demolish this, is that a third preference should not count for as much as a first preference even if, of course, it's a third preference contingent upon first and second choice candidates not being available for election. Still, it's a better argument than the one the No campaign are actually using.

Filed under: Alternative vote (79 more articles) , BNP (45 more articles) , Elections (242 more articles) , Electoral reform (91 more articles) , Hackery (213 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 (10)

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

Post comment

Tom Round

March 31st, 2011 12:13am Report this comment

Interesting that Ms Warsi (sorry, I can't quite get used to a "Baroness" lecturing us on democratic best practice) thinks that an "X" under first-past-the-post represents a real first preference.

Ironically, if FPTP is retained in the May referendum, the disgruntled Tory Right stand a good chance of being told at the 2014-2015 Commons election, "Sorry, the Conservative Party isn't standing a candidate in your constituency this time. The joint Coalition candidate candidate is a LibDem and we trust you'll give her your full support when campaigning. No sulking or boycotting or running dead, else you'll split the Coalition vote and let the Labour candidate win on 40%. If it's any consolation, there's a Conservative standing two constituencies over so if enough LibDems can bring themselves to vote tactically for him, you'll be represented at least virtually."

Whereas if AV gets passed, the Tory Right can make the most of their opportunity by immediately breaking away to form multiple separate small parties (No2Europe, Hang&Flog, The 1922 Campaign Committee, etc, etc) which can then "gang up" on Labour by exploiting all these supposed "second and third votes" that magically appear under AV (or so I'm told by Mr Cameron, who apparently earned a First in Politics at Oxford). As any Australian can tell you, running multiple candidates against a unified opponent is a winning strategy every time in AV elections... Ask the Liberal and National parties down under. They just love "three-cornered contests" - can't get enough of 'em.

Apemantus

March 31st, 2011 12:34am Report this comment

I would like to see some polling reflecting how likely it is that the BNP would be anyone's second choice. An avid supporter would surely put them first, and if they did not, would aid elimination in an early round.

There would surely need to be firstly enough BNP first preferences for any second preferences for them to become relevant.

Then there would need to be a large number of voters who choose a less popular party first but have a sympathy for the BNP and put them second.

Or have I misunderstood AV?

Simon Stephenson.

March 31st, 2011 8:25am Report this comment

Alex

"Like I say, AV is scarcely perfect and can't deliver some of the gains its advocates promise. But that doesn't excuse the No campaign's preference for hysterical and dishonest arguments against it."

I don't think I could criticise the No campaign for dishonesty, but be relaxed about the Yes campaign making promises it can't deliver - I mean, I know they're politicians, and reality isn't exactly their stock-in-trade, but is it no longer considered dishonest to promise what you can't deliver? Even if it is my side that's doing it?

Tom Round : 12.13am

"As any Australian can tell you, running multiple candidates against a unified opponent is a winning strategy every time in AV elections."

Can you, or someone else, explain to me why it works like this?

Tom Round

March 31st, 2011 11:49am Report this comment

Err, that was sarcasm. The two conservative parties in Australia generally try to avoid three-way fights where one of their sitting MPs is concerned. If the seat is Labor-held, or the sitting member retires, there's something akin to a US-style primary between the Libs (urban Cameron types) and the Nats (rural Ulster Unionist types). The conventional wisdom is that a certain percentage of preferences "leak" - ie, go to the other side (despite the party's recommendations) or, when preferences are optional (in some States), simply exhaust. But there's no advantage in single-seat AV in going out of your way to run multiple candidates. On the other hand, when the cleavages already exist (Lib vs Nat or, in some cases, the Nats even run two endorsed candidates in the same district), AV means multiple candidacies are not inevitably suicide bombers, electorally speaking.

At the 2010 federal election, voters in one West Aust seat replaced a Liberal MP (a conservative ex-Minister) with a National. Under FPTP, there is no way they would have been offered this choice. A coalition would only survive under FPTP (cf. India and Malaysia) if there is one single joint candidate per constituency, and the geographical carve-up will be decided not by the voters on election day but by the party bosses in - what's that phrase again - smoke-filled back rooms.

Simon Stephenson.

March 31st, 2011 8:53pm Report this comment

Tom Round : 11.49am

Thanks for the detail. Sorry I missed your sarcasm!!

Tom Round

March 31st, 2011 9:24pm Report this comment

Glad to assist. The UK AV debate (largely but not solely the No side) could do with more evidence-based input from the world's sixth oldest continuous democracy, which has used preferential voting for a century and where some dissatisfaction with a silly requirement of compulsory preferences should not be mistaken for (or misrepresented as) a desire to abolish preferences. No - I repeat, no - serious political actor or social movement in Australia is advocating a reversion to first-past-the-post. (The Gregorian calendar, the secret ballot and women's suffrage are also pretty well-established too, I hear).

Back to Ms Warsi... Where the rabbit goes into the hat is her frenzied warning (also repeated by the Daily Mail, I see) that "under AV, BNP supporters might see their votes counted SIX times". Six? Yikes! Three or four times, maybe... but six times?! Surely the Reichstag will burn down if that happens?

Err, no. A BNP voter, you see, would be much happier if their ballot got "counted" only once under AV (because this would mean they had elected the BNP candidate with an absolute majority). Having it "counted" twice would be non-ideal for the neckless ones, but still tolerable (it would probably mean they'd help elect a UKIP MP or a right-wing Independent).

But the only way BNP votes would get "counted" (ie, transferred) six times is if there were seven or eight candidates and all the minor players got eliminated. In which case, a BNP voter's sixth preference is going to be one of the two major parties strongest in their constituency - most likely the one (can't recall the name right now) that BNP supporters are currently tactically-voting for under FPTP.

Put another way: complaining that "Hey! Not fair! They got their vote counted SIX times under AV and mine got counted only once!" is roughly akin to me complaining "Hey! Not fair! You got to go to SIX job interviews before you found employment! I only got to go to one before I was hired!"

It is rather worrying that the UK's budget cuts are being calculated by Ministers who either don't understand this basic mathematical logic, or else don't care and are willing to misrepresent it anyway.

David Gould

March 31st, 2011 10:47pm Report this comment

AV probably isn't going to change things overnight. But it does unlock our democracy so that anyone or any party can govern us if that's what the electorate wants.

If you think Britain is best served by 2 parties which control almost everything in this country, becoming arrogant and self-serving before switching to the other party then vote No.

If you think voters need at least a little bit more say in Britain, the only sane vote is Yes!

Tom Round

April 1st, 2011 9:31pm Report this comment

By the way, if Ms Warsi really is worried about the UK using an electoral system that "counts one person's sixth preference as equal to another's first preference", then she is going after the wrong target by attacking AV ("single" transferable vote, anyone?). There is a voting system that does do exactly what she complains about. Unfortunately, it's been used for centuries in the UK. I'm talking about multi-seat first-past-the-post, as used for many local elections, where if there are six councillors elected in your ward, then you "X" six names on the ballot-paper. If (say) the LibDems have a plurality, they'll usually win all six seats, and a LibDem's sixth preference (disguised, in this case, as their sixth "X") defeats a Labour or Conservative voter's first preference.

So, Ms Warsi, Mr Cameron, and other sudden converts to the Single Vote cause... take it away! Abolish FPTP for multi-seat elections!

[crickets chirping]

Tom Round

April 7th, 2011 12:01pm Report this comment

Now No2AV are arguing that AV will "lead to five times more spoiled ballots and disenfranchise the poorest voters" (http://tinyurl.com/3fxo6tl). They are basing this on the fact that 5.36% of Australian House of Reps ballot-papers were invalid in 2010.

Uh, chaps...

(1) Australia has compulsory voting in federal elections. A certain percentage of the adult population will vote to avoid a $25 fine, but then deliberately spoil their ballot-paper in protest (especially when encouraged to do this by a former Leader of the Opposition). In the UK, these people usually stay home and don't vote, and their number now exceeds one-third of the total number legally entitled to vote.

(2) More importantly... Australia has compulsory preferences in federal elections. The 1984-98 attempt to allow some leeway was caught between the hammer of Albert Langer and the anvil of Nick Minchin, and has now been repealed.

The UK referendum proposal will not, if passed, require voters to number every candidate. A "1" will be sufficient for a valid vote.

Indeed, if I understand the UK legislation correctly, a tick or cross will continue to be counted as a valid "1" vote (as in NSW where only 2.77% of votes were invalid in the 2007 State election, and 2.62% in 2003).

In other words, not one single ballot that is valid under the present first-past-the-post system (if marked with an "X" for one candidate) would be invalid under the AV system proposed for UK.

Very, very slippery customers, this "No2AV" crew.

Tom Round

April 8th, 2011 10:55am Report this comment

Alex, as The Speccie's token honest broker in the AV referendum debate (the others seem to be trying tho straddle that thin line between "FPTP ensures clear choices and electoral accountability, and has made Britain's democracy the finest in the world" and "For the past 4-5 decades the Labour/ Tory duopoly has conspired to sell this country out to the European superstate, despite the wishes of a clear majority of voters"), perhaps you could run a contest for the most exaggerated pro- or anti-AV arguments readers can find (or dream up)?

Eg, something along the lines of...

UNDER AV WE'D HAVE LOST WW2.

Renowned historian Sir Humperdinck Allywedd Potts-Hawley stated yesterday that, had Britain used the Alternative Vote in the 1940s, the Luftwaffe would have prevailed in the Battle of Britain. 'SIR - As a military historian of some 60 years' standing, I can attest that battles are invariably won by the largest single army', Sir Humperdinck wrote to The Telegraph yesterday. 'Using AV for Westminster elections during the Blitz would have deluded this nation's finest into thinking that a numerical weaker force could repel a stronger foe at the last minute with the assistance of an even smaller ally... [etc]

- except that I'm not sure the Daily Mail hasn't already run something similar.

Post comment