Will AV lead to PR?
It's one of the platitudes of the AV referendum: a YES vote on May 6th shows a desire for change, a first step towards PR; a NO vote would be interpreted as a liking for our current system and the prospect of PR is dead for at least a generation.
The logic is horrendously flawed. A YES vote is to be interpreted as not so much a liking for AV (few really like it) but a rejection of our current system. But if we vote NO this is interpreted as a liking for our current system. Using the same logic, one could argue that a YES vote shows AV is wanted and PR is off the agenda for generation. Such claims are unwarranted but the effect of a YES is likely to be nearer the latter.
The only reason that a NO vote would be interpreted as a victory for traditionalists and supporters of first-past-the-post (FPP) is if the electoral reform movement suddenly brought the shutters down, shut up shop and disbanded. Of course, it would not. The first thing it would do is commission polls to see how many people that voted against AV would have voted for PR. In fact, an opinion poll by YouGov on March 18, 2011, already shows that PR is twice as popular as AV as a replacement for FPP. A close NO vote would imply that had PR been on the ballot then the outcome would have been different. Get the placards back out - let's push for PR for the House Of Lords or local elections. With a narrow NO vote there would be momentum for some sort of genuine reform elsewhere.
But what if the vote is YES? First AV has to be implemented. Then AV has to be used for minimum of several elections so it may be at least 25 years before any momentum for PR is going to be seriously entertained. And what if AV, as we suspect, is unpopular. What if the promises of every MP getting elected with a majority, more consenual politics and more hearder working MPs are not realized? And what if during this time an AV Earthquake rocks British politics or voters get sick of the wheeling and dealing between the parties before even a vote is cast? If AV becomes unpopular there is every reason to believe that the next step is back to FPP. Where there's a heritage of FPP the political reflex is to gravitate back to it. Here's the evidence.
- Western provinces of Canada moved back to FPP after years of AV
- Papua New Guinea first moved back to FPP after using AV
- Ireland has held two referenda on moving away from STV to FPP.
- New Zealand is having a referendum on changing back from PR and FPP is the clear leader for the alternative
- Australia, which has used AV nearly 100 years, has had one opinion poll showing a desire for FPP
All these countries have strong ties to British culture (exepct Papua New Guinea) and FPP. The cases of Ireland and New Zealand show that even when PR is introduced there are even moves to re-introduce FPP if there is a heritage of using it. In the first four cases, AV has been rejected or ignored in favour of FPP. AV was also ignored for the electoral systems of the regional assemblies in the UK and rejected by the Jenkins Commission for general elections in the UK. In stark contrast, no country has yet moved from AV to PR, but some have moved from FPP to PR, including the Irish people deciding to use STV after using FPP.
When voters start voting for smaller parties the two-party system starts to fractionalize. Political scientists measure this process by an index called the Number of Effective Parties (NEP). When this index reaches 4.0 and above, FPP is seen as not fit for purpose by the electorate and is often replaced by PR. Currently, the NEP in the UK stands at 3.75. Swapping FPP for AV now (and it is swap because AV is a variant of FPP) is introducing the wrong system at the wrong time. For those wanting a more proportional system, the timing could hardly be worse.
Will AV lead to PR? Definitely, if you ignore the wicked witch of the facts and just follow the yellow brick road.
