The only thing that has been proved by this referendum on changing the electoral system used for Westminster elections is that referendums are a hopeless way of deciding these matters. Neither the politicians nor the press have distinguished themselves during an affair that’s been distinguished by the mendacity of almost all the protagonists, the hysteria of partisans on both sides and the sheer quantity of lumpen stupidity on display. It has not been an edifying or comforting process.
Today alone has seen a spectacular amount of hyperbollocks. Andrew Sparrow’s Guardian live-blog is grim reading. As ever the Yes campaign’s sanctimonious suggestion that AV will cleanse all that’s supposed to be wrong with British politics is on full display. It won’t and it’s silly to claim it will just as it’s silly to suggest AV eradicates safe seats (it doesn’t) or that if elected by AV MPs will work harder (they won’t) or that the expenses scandal wouldn’t have happened had AV been in place in the past (a gallingly preposterous notion).
All that AV does – and all that needs to be said in its defence – is ensure all MPs are supported, albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm, by a majority of their constituents. By jove, that’s why it’s a majoritarian system, not a proportional one. For what it’s worth I share John Rentoul’s preference for emulating the French system but running it on a single ballot. It seems sadly typical that if AV is some kind of shabby compromise we should be contemplating adopting an inferior form of AV. Ah well.
If the Yes campaign has been dire, the No campaign has been ridiculous. The argument for FPTP, as I understand it, is that even simpletons can understand it and, well, it’s what we use and so we should continue to use it even if it’s not actually a very good system. The Prime Minister, normally an intelligent man, now declares that “gut” is more important than reason and so FPTP must be maintained. What a powerful case*! (Nor does Mr Cameron enhave his credibility by arguing that Gordon Brown could have been elected Prime Minister if AV had been used. So what? He could have been elected by FPTP too and on just 36% of the vote!)
Meanwhile, Dr John Reid, hitherto also considered an intelligent man, insists that AV is “not fair, it is not equal and it is not British.” Where to begin? The fairness and equality of AV have been discussed here many times before but does Dr Reid really mean to suggest that FPTP is the only “British” way to run an election? What about all the elections – European, Scottish, Northern Irish, Welsh, council etc etc – that don’t use FPTP? To say nothing of the systems the political parties use for choosing their own leaders? If preferential voting is good enough for the Labour party why isn’t it good enough for the country? (Or if FPTP is good enough for Westminster why isn’t it good enough for the Labour party?)
One could go on. I doubt more than one in twenty of the arguments made – either for or against AV – in this campaign have any substance to them at all. Instead there’s been such an endless parade of misinformation, dishonesty, special pleading and scaremongering that one wonders if this country’s political and media classes can be trusted to hold any further referendums on any subject at all.
*Though “custom” is at least a respectable Tory position. And one that’s often wise.
Comments