Ever met a friend of yours a couple of days after a party and said to them: "What a great evening so and so's was. I had a lovely time." Only for them to tell you that it was a dreadful evening and recite a list of things you didn't think made any difference but clearly ruined it for them?
It's hard to imagine how you can both remember the same night so differently.
I imagine this must happen to Lib Dem President Tim Farron quite a lot. Not that I've ever been to a party with him or even had the pleasure of speaking to him but going by how he remembers his history I think it's a fair guess.
I had always reckoned that Britain's political system had played a key role in making her the first major nation to permanently abolish slavery. I say permanently because France re-introduced slavery after deciding egalite only goes so far.
Mr Farron remembers things a little differently.
He seems to think that the British electoral system hindered the process of abolition despite being the first to introduce it and then vote through colossal amounts of money to promote the cause throughout the world. I suppose his point is that if other countries had had AV they might have beaten us to it.
Perhaps when people seem to remember things differently they're just being dishonest. You know what I mean. The people who have to dislike everything to appear cool. A good way of spotting this is a general inconsistency in their opinions. Now that band has become popular they no longer like them, that sort of thing.
In the case of the Yes campaign this inconsistency is starting to show. I don't just mean Farron's strange interpretation of history but that now AV is being sold as a way of keeping the Tories out no matter what. So a system that was originally sold as representing all voters is revealed as nothing more than partisan opportunism. One that is now finding all sorts of excuses for why they're so far behind in the polls. Though you can always rely on Polly Toynbee to add to the bitterness of a campaign.
They seem to have given up on debating the issue of voter empowerment and are just hoping that turn out will be low and that enough Labour supporters will follow their party line.
As Robert Colvile points out in the Telegraph the Yes campaign has not been entirely honest in it's campaigning particularly how it tries to make out it has less funding that the No campaign. Colvile has a series of articles explaining why you should vote no. Along with an excellent Evening Standard piece by Matthew d'Ancona the argument against is outlined far better than I could ever hope to.
Byron once said that hope was the paint on the face of existence, the least touch of truth rubs it off. He could have been speaking about the Yes campaign.
Showing posts with label Yes to AV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yes to AV. Show all posts
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Monday, 21 February 2011
AV Not As Easy As 1, 2, 3
This week has seen the papers finally start to talk seriously about the referendum on electoral reform that will take place on May 5.
Not that one can blame them for taking their time covering this story. After all, there are far more important stories about fairness and democracy going on the other side of the Mediterranean. Perhaps these stories should put the Yes campaign's grievances with First Past the Post (FPTP) in to perspective.
Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer (20/02/11) went for a preemptive strike against the No campaign's argument that the Alternative Vote (AV) was too complicated by claiming that that was going after the 'Thicko' vote. Rawnsley seems to believe that by too complicated the No campaign mean that people are too stupid to be able to put their top three candidates in order. He makes it sound like the No's are saying people can't count to three.
I'll credit Rawnsley here with misrepresentation. I wouldn't for a second presume that people who don't agree with me are too thick to understand the argument. Let me try to explain what I think they mean.
The point the No's are trying to make is this: As we have seen with the raise of tactical voting AV would encourage people to try to manipulate their extra votes by putting a party that would never win as their first choice and a mainstream party as their second or third.
This will lead to an abdication of responsibility of the voter. Suppose you have some sympathy with an extremist party, say the BNP. You would be able to put them as your first choice on the basis of one issue, for example immigration. You would not have had to have read their manifesto and may even have been appalled by it if you had. You care about immigration so vote BNP first then one of the main parties second.
No big deal you might say. During the first couple of elections that would be true. There will come a time, however, that a marginal seat will be won for a major party by people who voted BNP (or whoever) first and the major party second. If it hadn't started before then that will mark the beginning of the main parties 'listening' to extremist groups so as to secure the second votes of their supporters. Extreme parties might be against AV because they will never reach 50 per cent of the vote but it will turn them in to more successful lobby groups.
Starting to sound a bit more complicated than counting to three, isn't it?
Rawnsley, along with all AV supporters, believe that 50 is a magic percentile. That an individual candidate reaching it is worth changing a system that has given us stable and middle ground governments for time immemorial.
I believe that one is also a magic number.
One person, one vote was a popular slogan for universal suffrage a hundred years ago. Do we really want to do away with that principle? A principle that was so hard won.
AV would create an unequal democracy with some people having more than one vote by virtue of their immoderate views.
Although I won't dwell too much on this Rawnsley also implies that FPTP supporters are little Englanders. That pointing out that hardly any other nation uses AV for general elections is trying to make it sound un-British. It is in fact internationalist to look at other nations and the systems they use. Having done that you would be foolish indeed to not ask yourself why so few go for AV.
Rawnsley's article also makes several assumptions about those who fall in the D/E class bracket. He says that the D/E's are more likely to be persuaded and more likely to stick with the status quo. I'm sorry but that is nonsense. A sweeping statement like this could just as easily be made that they are more likely to follow the line taken by the Labour leadership.
None of this is to say that FPTP is without problems. Of course there are plenty of things wrong with it. These problems will not be solved by AV. Elections will still come down to marginal seats and the House will still not perfectly reflect numbers of votes cast for each party. Only Proportional Representation can fix those problems. Though, like every other it would bring its own difficulties to the table. At least it would also bring benefits.
Unlike AV.
Not that one can blame them for taking their time covering this story. After all, there are far more important stories about fairness and democracy going on the other side of the Mediterranean. Perhaps these stories should put the Yes campaign's grievances with First Past the Post (FPTP) in to perspective.
Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer (20/02/11) went for a preemptive strike against the No campaign's argument that the Alternative Vote (AV) was too complicated by claiming that that was going after the 'Thicko' vote. Rawnsley seems to believe that by too complicated the No campaign mean that people are too stupid to be able to put their top three candidates in order. He makes it sound like the No's are saying people can't count to three.
I'll credit Rawnsley here with misrepresentation. I wouldn't for a second presume that people who don't agree with me are too thick to understand the argument. Let me try to explain what I think they mean.
The point the No's are trying to make is this: As we have seen with the raise of tactical voting AV would encourage people to try to manipulate their extra votes by putting a party that would never win as their first choice and a mainstream party as their second or third.
This will lead to an abdication of responsibility of the voter. Suppose you have some sympathy with an extremist party, say the BNP. You would be able to put them as your first choice on the basis of one issue, for example immigration. You would not have had to have read their manifesto and may even have been appalled by it if you had. You care about immigration so vote BNP first then one of the main parties second.
No big deal you might say. During the first couple of elections that would be true. There will come a time, however, that a marginal seat will be won for a major party by people who voted BNP (or whoever) first and the major party second. If it hadn't started before then that will mark the beginning of the main parties 'listening' to extremist groups so as to secure the second votes of their supporters. Extreme parties might be against AV because they will never reach 50 per cent of the vote but it will turn them in to more successful lobby groups.
Starting to sound a bit more complicated than counting to three, isn't it?
Rawnsley, along with all AV supporters, believe that 50 is a magic percentile. That an individual candidate reaching it is worth changing a system that has given us stable and middle ground governments for time immemorial.
I believe that one is also a magic number.
One person, one vote was a popular slogan for universal suffrage a hundred years ago. Do we really want to do away with that principle? A principle that was so hard won.
AV would create an unequal democracy with some people having more than one vote by virtue of their immoderate views.
Although I won't dwell too much on this Rawnsley also implies that FPTP supporters are little Englanders. That pointing out that hardly any other nation uses AV for general elections is trying to make it sound un-British. It is in fact internationalist to look at other nations and the systems they use. Having done that you would be foolish indeed to not ask yourself why so few go for AV.
Rawnsley's article also makes several assumptions about those who fall in the D/E class bracket. He says that the D/E's are more likely to be persuaded and more likely to stick with the status quo. I'm sorry but that is nonsense. A sweeping statement like this could just as easily be made that they are more likely to follow the line taken by the Labour leadership.
None of this is to say that FPTP is without problems. Of course there are plenty of things wrong with it. These problems will not be solved by AV. Elections will still come down to marginal seats and the House will still not perfectly reflect numbers of votes cast for each party. Only Proportional Representation can fix those problems. Though, like every other it would bring its own difficulties to the table. At least it would also bring benefits.
Unlike AV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)