The questions you should ask before you decide how you will vote

Bishops In Check

Ten Church of England bishops are backing a change to the alternative vote for ethical and moral reasons, according to The Guardian. Although we have not be able to obtain any formal statement we have seen comments from three of the bishops.

• Bishop of Beverley: It is self evident that someone who speaks on our behalf has far more authority if elected with 50% or more of the vote, rather than someone who has gained only minority support from the electorate
• Bishop Langrish: Voting systems are not value-free. I am supporting a change on the grounds of justice and accountability. AV will increase the likelihood that the general preference of a majority rather than a plurality will shape the choice of MPs, and so parliament. It will also increase the accountability of MPs, particularly in 'safe seats' who will have to have a greater regard for electors, not of their own party.
• Bishop Wilson: As the power of party whips and managers has grown, it has become plainer that they are really the only people first-past-the-post really serves. It enables them to switch off in most constituencies and concentrate all their efforts on a minority. As boundaries are drawn and redrawn, all kinds of inter-party horse-trading places the lines.

The Bishop of Beverley's point would be sound if local representation was all a general election was about. It is not. Research fort the Jenkins Commission found that "for general elections, voters consider which party they wish to govern the country, and see the election of their local representative MP only as a means to this end." If the choice of party is the primary voter consideration and the constituency is only a means in which to register this support, then why is it important that a party gets a measure of support from the majority in a constituency? If voters want to have a say in electing a government then the most important factor is that everyone's first choice counts in determining the composition of Parliament. This requires a proportional system in which each vote counts equally. Both AV and FPP perform equally abysmally in achieving this; there is no reason to prefer AV in this respect.

Bishop Langrish appears to believe that Parliament will better reflect the general preference of the electorate because each MP will have been elected by a majority acquiescence. This is false. AV cannot reflect the general preference any better than first-past-the-post (FPP). On average, AV is not even slightly more proportional than FPP and in some cases it will be worse. For example, an "AV earthquake" is a gross distortion of the general will and grants even greater political power for a party and its leaders. As for accountability, AV will create a new kind of safe seat, one that will arguably be more robust than under our current system. And most MPs do have a regard for their electors. As Lord Alexander (Jenkins Commission) pointed out: "Once an election is over, there is a long-standing tradition that MPs are available to serve all their constituents. MPs do not do this any less well where they have under 50% of the vote. Indeed they need to work hard to garner future support."

Bishop Wilson notes that our current system is sensitive to boundary changes - AV will be no different, it is also a single member system that is sensitive to boundary changes. The bishop also believes that AV will return more power to the voter. Actually, the opposite is true. With AV, horse-trading and deal-making occur before even a vote has been cast in a constituency as the larger parties try to secure preference deals with the smaller parties, who are no more likely to get elected than FPP. AV favours the larger parties.

If the bishops do wish to see greater electoral justice then they should support PR. Perhaps they do and see AV as a step towards it. But there is simply no reason to believe AV would be. On the contrary, if AV does not prove durable, the next step is just as likely to be back to FPP because the UK has a political heritage of it and a deep-rooted vested interest in single-member systems from the two main parties. In which case, AV would have inflicted incalculable damage to the electoral reform movement and our democracy.