Fair Vote Canada Attacks AV
Fair Vote Canada (FVC) is the Canadian equivalent of the Electoral Reform Society (ERS). Like the ERS, FVC is working to move away from first-past-the-post (FPTP) and introduce proportional representation (PR) for its national elections. Unlike the ERS, however, FVC clearly backs the view of this website and the No2AV-Yes2PR campaign in rejecting AV, which it sees as a mere change and not reform.
In a statement last month the FVC stated categorically: "Fair Vote Canada has always taken the position that AV is phony reform. Although the voter gets to cast her sincere vote without giving up her strategic vote, in fact pretty much the same people get elected. Actually, experience in Australia shows that AV can be even less proportional than FPTP. Turns out vote splitting is how third parties win seats."
It also correctly states: "The Alternative Vote creates the illusion that those who are elected have majority support, but in fact it merely formalizes and entrenches strategic voting. AV will not allow voters to hold political parties accountable. AV will not end phony majority governments and make government accountable to Parliament. AV will not help elect more women and minorities. AV will not make every vote count."
Compare this clear and correct evaluation to the YES campaign in the UK who continue to say AV will make every vote count and will make MPs work harder. AV does nothing for greater plurality and, if anything, actually increases the power of the larger parties. Nor can the YES campaign dismiss the FVC statement as relative to the Canadian context. These statements are a clear condemnation of AV in principle, an electoral system that Canada has used for some of its regional assemblies in the past.
The contrast between FVC and the ERS could hardly be greater. The ERS should have never agreed to support a majoritarian and non-proportional system without, at the very least, demanding further concessions. For example, STV for local elections in England and Wales and for the House of Lords could have been elements in a broader reform package. Even better, the ERS could have followed the principled lead from our Canadian cousins and refused to back any change to the electoral system that did not offer at least some increase in proportionality. Surely the minimum requirement would have been AV+ (a top-up system based on AV).
It is pointless for the YES campaign to continue to clutch at straws and claim that once we have AV then it is possible to move to AV+ or even STV. Of course, it is possible but is it likely? After all, it is even easier to move from FPTP to MMP (a top-up system based on FPTP). We note that Australia has not moved to AV+ and has instead used AV for nearly a century.
The same vested interests that wish to keep FPTP will also try to prevent any real reform if we take the bait and make the phoney switch. They are likely to hide behind the fact that we undertaken "reform" and would claim our democracy would not need further change (the "AV and no further" position of Ed Miliband). In reality, we would only have changed our electoral system and it would still be in dire need of reform.
It appears FVC realize that changing FPTP for AV is likely to delay progressive reform. Single-member systems are unsustainable as a modern electoral system and FPTP will be seen to have failed by the electorate soon enough. A poll by YouGov on March 18 showed that people in the UK prefer PR to AV by a margin of over 2:1. This suggests that the UK electorate already has seen that PR is the remedy to our democratic deficit.
We say it again: this referendum is asking the UK to implement the wrong electoral system at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.
Let's put an end to the this phoney electoral reform. Vote NO to AV in May.
