Reformers, extremists and the selling of AV
The Electoral Reform Society (ERS) had long held that AV was inappropriate for Parliamentary elections. Then a referendum on AV was touted and, instead of adhering to its policy, the society is campaigning for a "Yes" vote. It has produced a "Why AV?" document, left. It advances six points for supporting AV, but for now we examine only one:
Shutting down extremism. Extremists can get in by the back door under FPTP. We've already seen BNP candidates elected to our town halls. And in each case, they have scraped in with minority support. AV doesn't let candidates slip in with just a minority of the votes. Winners need the goodwill of the majority. For extremists AV is a brick wall.
First, we do not have an extremist problem for Parliamentary elections. The BNP, for example, has never won a seat at Westminster under our current system and is unlikely ever to do so. Even if the BNP were ever in a stronger position in a constituency voters would probably vote tactically to keep them out. There is no problem to be fixed, only a voting system to sell by playing the "extremist card" to woo some support.
Second, while AV will make it harder for extreme parties to win a seat, it does empower them with greater electoral influence and leverage. For example, had the 2010 General Election been conducted with AV then it is likely BNP voters would have held the balance of power in the constituency of Dagenham & Rainham. Yes, the 2nd preferences of BNP voters could have decided the seat. This is AV working as designed - giving smaller parties more bargaining power to deliver their second preferences to major parties in return for policy concessions (see Q4). Under First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) parties like the BNP are irrelevant. Under AV they will be emboldened by their greater importance in some constituencies.
Third, the ERS has long advocated the adoption of the Single Transferable Vote (STV), which would considerably lower the bar for Parliamentary representation, including for extremists. In a five-member STV constituency the threshold for winning a seat is just under 17%. This is significantly less than the lowest winning vote share at the 2010 General Election, which was 29%, and far less than the average winning vote share of 47%. The ERS is criticizing FPTP for opening the back door to extremists while at the same time advocating proportional representation that would leave the front door wide open by comparison.
Any AV advocate who ultimately seeks proportional representation and plays the extremism card like this risks being seen as disingenuous. We can only assume the ERS has failed to notice this glaring inconsistency in its position. Perhaps the logical inconsistency has arisen because in its rush to sell AV the ERS has forgotten the implications of its long-standing principles. However, the ERS could present its case for AV with five arguments and leave this one out. Of course, it need not have thrown its weight behind AV at all and held out to sway first Labour and then the Liberal Democrats to implement STV for local elections - our Plan A.
AV is being sold, in part, by playing the extremist card even when (i) there is no problem to fix; (ii) AV is likely to give extremists a more prominent role during elections not less; and (iii) some who sell AV in this way actually prefer electoral systems which would make it easier for extremists to enter Parliament than our current system. It is disappointing to see the extremism card played cheaply like this.
We also believe STV to be the optimum electoral system and we acknowledge that it would be easier for more extreme parties to get elected than under FPTP. This is the price of giving representation to the many moderate voters whose voices are silenced under our current system. And if an extreme party did gain representation we would not view this is as a failure of the electoral procedure but a failure of the political system. Democracy must represent all the people while politicians must tackle extremism and the issues that play into their grubby hands.
