Yes, I hear you say, yet another post about the pros and cons of AV as we build up to the referendum on May 5th. But bear with me, because I’ll keep this as brief as possible. Here’s why I think we should vote No to AV.
Forget for a moment all the points being made by the No campaign, about the estimated high costs of AV and all the debate about One Person, One Vote. Let’s for a moment imagine that the Yes campaign wins, and the next General Election in the UK uses AV. If this happens, there are two possible scenarios when it comes to the outcome:
1. The outcome of the election is the same as it would have been under the current system, ie the same party or parties end up in power.
2. AV changes the outcome of the election. The two big parties lose votes at the expense of the others, meaning a much higher chance of another coalition government.
Neither is good for the country. If changing the voting system has little or no impact on the result, as various research has suggested (including the BBC and LSE), then why spend public money on changing the voting system? Counting the vote under AV will invariably take longer, thereby costing more than the current system. With cuts being made left, right and centre (no pun intended), surely the funds could be better channelled into schools, hospitals and the like?
Update: @halfmanhalfwit on Twitter made the point that counters get a flat fee no matter how long the vote count takes. A valid point. However, there will invariably be other administrative costs involved with changing a voting system on this scale. There will surely also be a big educational advertising campaign required come the next election to remind voters how it works. But this doesn’t alter the point that if the outcomes of future elections are the same under AV as under the current system, we’d be changing the system for the sake of changing it, not because it’s going to lead to more accountable governments.
But let’s say AV does alter the outcomes of our General Elections, leading to more coalition governments. This too is a bad thing – when parties enter into a coalition, they necessarily have to make compromises and go back on election manifesto pledges. The stark reality of this was shown when key Lib Dems recently backed plans to increase university tuition fees, despite having said they would scrap them in their 2010 General Election manifesto. More coalitions in the future would lead to more such situations, from all parties involved. It means that parties will be able to promise things in their manifestos that they know they can’t or won’t deliver – and they’ll be able to blame the failure on the fact that they were part of a coalition. The manifestos won’t be worth the paper they’re printed on.
The current system has largely led to single-party governments, which means you know what you’ll get from the party that wins, and it’s easier to hold the government to account. There’s no hiding for MPs whose parties don’t deliver on manifesto promises; they can – and do – get voted out.
So there you have it – neither possible consequence of a Yes vote is good for Britain. Vote No to AV on May 5th.
Blog feed
