Will AV end the calls for electoral reform?
No - reformers do not see AV as a settlement, merely a concession on the road to proportional representation. Experience from other countries suggests implementing AV now may end the reform process rather than start it.
For many reformers AV is a stepping stone in the long and winding road to electoral reform. There are two main arguments for viewing AV like this and both are mistaken. The first is: with the adoption of AV voters will like preferential voting and then want to move to the single transferable vote (STV).
The serious problem with this thinking is that, if AV is introduced for general elections, either:
- AV becomes popular and there will be little desire for change, except perhaps using AV in other elections or
- AV proves unpopular and, with preferential voting tainted, the impetus will be to return to our current system.
There is evidence to support this position. Where AV fits a political system, such as Australia, it remains in place: Australia has been using AV for 90 years. Where it has not, it has not been replaced by STV. After using AV for 30 years in regional elections, the Western provinces of Canada returned to our first-past-the-post system in the 1950s and has been using it ever since. The prospects of getting STV from AV look slim.
It may be countered that AV is a better system than our current one and therefore worth adopting anyway. Firstly, this concedes the original argument that AV is a good step towards PR. More importantly, AV does not offer any net advantage over our current system and, if anything, is likely to increase dissatisfaction with our political system. Our site is dedicated to articulating this view.
The other argument is that AV will benefit the Liberal Democrats the most. If they win more seats under AV they will be in a stronger position when there is another hung parliament and will secure a referendum on STV as part of any future coalition.
Now there are two problems. Firstly, Labour and Conservatives could stitch up a deal that neither would give away a STV referendum in negotiations - the voting system is probably the one area of policy that Labour and Conservatives could agree on. With vested interests at stake, they probably would come to some agreement even if the outcome would be that one of them had to form a minority government. Obviously the two parties would blame the Liberal Democrats for putting party interest above the national one - and such a claim would be credible. The other problem is more obvious. Even if a STV referendum is held it still has to be won. Without STV being implemented in local elections first, the electorate will have no experience of multi-member constituencies, and may resist further change.
AV must be adopted with the view that it will be the UK's electoral system for decades.
And then its flaws will become all too apparent and all too late. Where we do agree is that STV is the best voting system in a modern, pluralistic society. Our goal is surely best realised by immediately implementing STV for local elections. This is why we are advocating Plan A for electoral reform. We hope you will join us.
The Electoral Reform Society states: "The electoral reform movement is not going to go away after AV and accept a permanent settlement that is not based on proportionality." It couldn't be clearer.
