Nick Clegg misleads reformers in AV speech
The Yes to Fairer Votes campaign is launched with hyperbole as Nick Clegg calls AV "infinitely fairer"
Shortly before the street-strewn angst of the student demonstrations, Nick Clegg helped launch the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign at the Liberal Democrat conference (18th September, 2010). In his short introductory speech about the Alternative Vote (AV), the Liberal Democrat leader said: "I know AV may not be the favourite voting system of everyone here, but whether you prefer this, AV plus, the single transferable vote or another model, we all agree that AV is infinitely fairer than what we have at the moment."
There is little empirical support for this claim. By the most intelligible standard of electoral fairness, AV is not fairer than our current system, let alone infinitely so. When the Liberal Democrats polled 23% of the national vote in the 2010 General Election but won under 9% of the seats it yet again highlighted the need for "fairer votes" in Britain today. Some people may argue that fairness is not the only standard to judge elections, preferring to see the election of majority governments, for example. However, almost everyone agrees the standard of electoral fairness is proportionality of Parliamentary seats to national votes. This is because democracy is the representation of all the people. It cannot be simply reduced to representation of at least half the people in each constituency using second and third preferences of some voters, as AV seeks to do. After all, if the 2010 general election result for the Liberal Democrats had been achieved with AV rather than first-past-the-post, would their supporters accept the result as fair and drop their demand for PR?
And a similar result could be achieved under AV because it is no more proportional - and therefore no fairer - than our current system. In fact, projections suggest that three out of the last four general elections would have been more disproportional under AV. In certain circumstances AV can even turn landslide elections into "electoral earthquakes", such as when a party in a Canadian regional assembly won 97% of the seats with 53% of first preferences.
Is an "AV earthquake" a fair election result merely because some voters second and third preferences were counted or because most MPs polled over 50% of the total vote in their constituencies? If you believe it is fair, then the electoral reform movement ends with the adoption of AV. If you believe it is unfair, and most people would agree that such results are not only unfair but deeply undemocractic, then electoral reform does not even begin with AV but takes a step back.
"It is important to dispel the myth that AV is somehow a positive step if you want more political pluralism," adds Dr Thomas Lundberg, a lecturer in comparative politics and electoral systems at the University of Glasgow. "Electoral reform is a very rare event, so you will probably be stuck with AV, which may encourage more voters to give first preferences to small parties but subsequent preferences will be for a larger party. AV exaggerates the tendency of the current system to direct all voters into a two-sided competition. If you want a more representative House of Commons and a more consensual type of governance, vote against AV."
In Canada, which has had experience of AV, the Law Commission stated that AV did not constitute a viable alternative to first-past-the-post (FPP). Also Fair Votes Canada, stated: "Democrats must be constant in the demand for fair democratic representation for every citizen and nothing less. AV is no solution for the democratic deficit." Back home, the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) has stated that AV would not produce fairer representation and has long held that AV is unsuitable for Parliamentary elections.
There seems to be agreement: the major defect of FPP is its inherent disproportionality and AV does nothing to remedy it. In fact, AV could actually make it worse. With a breathtaking capitulation of principle, the ERS has now endorsed AV. Other electoral reform groups in the UK have followed suit. Each may have reasons for wishing to see AV adopted but to claim without qualification that AV delivers "fair votes" or is a "fairer" system is misleading voters.
