That is the question.
And frankly I haven't a clue.
Next Thursday in the U.K. we're having a referendum on whether to change our voting system from First Past the Post (FPTP) to the Alternative Vote (AV) system. So to be a responsible subject I ought to have a think about how to vote.
The first past the post system is the one we currently have. The person with the most votes wins. It's simple and transparent. But it has its problems: the existence of safe seats and that votes for a minor party seem a waste. The AV system claims to be able to fix this. In the AV system (which we use in student union elections), instead of putting a cross by the candidate you want, you number the candidates you want in order of preference (you don't have to put a number against all of them). The votes are then counted and the person with 50% of the vote wins. If no one has 50% then the candidate who came last is eliminated and their votes are redistributed amongst the other candidates, according to the second preference. This is continued until someone has more than 50% of the vote. So does this fix the problems of FPTP? Does it create any new problems?
Will it make safe seats less safe?
Maybe for some seats. In constituencies where there is currently one clear winner and the remaining vote is spilt between two similar parties then suddenly the seat will becomes more marginal. But in other cases it won't. Where there is one clear winner at the moment and the remaining vote is spilt between lots of different parties then the seat will remain safe. Currently if you live in such a safe constituency, and you don't like the safe candidate, then it doesn't seem worth voting. But what would happen under AV? Maybe everyone's alternative choices will combine under some compromise candidate to oust the current incumbent. And this will make it worth voting. But I think its unlikely.
What about voting for minor parties?
At the last election I was living in a marginal constituency: between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. Under FPTP a vote for a minor party is perceived as a wasted vote. But I voted for UKIP, why? Wasn't that a waste. The reason UKIP (or any other minor party candidate) is seen as a wasted vote is because everyone assumes that everyone else will vote for the two main parties, so they vote for one of the two main parties, even though they don't really represent them. So even though with FPTP you should be voting positively, you end up voting negatively, to keep someone else out. But I voted UKIP anyway, why? Because I decided to vote positively in the forlorn hope that everyone else might also decide to. I decided there wasn't a big enough policy difference between the two major candidates for it to matter much if the which of them got in. Neither represented me. As it turned out, the Conservative won.
With AV I wouldn't have had to face this dilemma – I could have voted UKIP 1st, Conservative 2nd, Whoever 3rd etc. My vote wouldn't have been wasted. In essence I have one positive vote and then can arrange my preferences to arrive at the least worst candidate. This sounds like a better system. But I'm not so sure. I think the minor parties would pick up far more votes than they do. This seems more representative, and if that means people voting positively it would be a good thing. However what is most likely is that the minor parties will be eliminated and their votes redistributed so they'll be no real change. In fact, I fear, the major parties will be blander than ever in the hope of picking up the second preference votes of the other major parties. In short: you can vote centre left in either red, blue, or yellow and various levels of sanity. This is hardly increasing democracy. By voting UKIP in the last election I was sending a message to the conservative party. By moving their policies to the left they have lost my vote. In some constituencies, assuming most UKIP voters are Tories, the UKIP vote lost the Conservatives the seat. The more my vote costs the the Conservatives the more likely they are to decide to shift back to the right - and then people can have a genuine choice at future elections – which might just shake up voter apathy. But under AV the Conservative parties can safely ignore the concerns of UKIP voters as they know they'll pick up the second preferences. The chance to vote for genuinely different alternatives is essential to a healthy democracy; I think AV will erode the remaining differences between the major parties.
The ability to sling one government out and install another is important part of a democratic state. Some people believe that AV will result in more coaltions with the Lib Dems, winning more seats. But coalitions are unaccountable. Both parties seem to rip up their manifestos and blame the fact they're not keeping their promises on the other party. In addition the third party (the Lib Dems) remain in perpetual power and act a king makers. That doesn't seems very representative.
To sum up. AV sounds like a great idea in principle. You can vote for who you want to represent you without feeling you're wasting your vote. I don't think we can tell what the effects of AV will be. Will voter turnout increase and what effect might that have? Will a minor parties be seen as a credible choice and this change the whole political landscape? But as a whole I can't see it changing the grip of the major parties. And as an unintended consequence, their policies will become less distinctive. Do we want to elect the least offensive candidate to the electorate rather than the one most people want? And should people's second, third or fourth preference vote count as much as a first preference? I'm still not sure how I'll vote. My heart says AV, but my head may overule.
Anyway it doesn't matter how I'll vote. How will you vote? This is an important issue to think and pray about. And if you want to know more about the issues then I suggest you read here and look here for a Christian perspective.
P.S. I just found this video clip which demonstrates a serious flaw in the AV system. By voting for who you want, you can cause someone you don't want to be elected, who wouldn't have been elected if you hadn't voted!
P.S. I just found this video clip which demonstrates a serious flaw in the AV system. By voting for who you want, you can cause someone you don't want to be elected, who wouldn't have been elected if you hadn't voted!
No comments:
Post a Comment