At this moment the Conservative Party are offering a referendum at some point in the future, at which point it can start being put into law (if we all decide it's a good idea). Similarly, the Labour Party are offering to legislate straight away for Alternative Voting, and hold a referendum at some point to change to some form of proportional representation. Maybe STV, maybe full PR. The labour offer is obviously grossly more appealing to the Liberal Democrats, not least because Alternative Voting isn't by any definition a reform.
Alternative Voting has been described as a very special case of STV, but it could be better said that it is a such a special case, it loses all meaning and turns into something else. The current system, First Past the Post, is very simple. Whichever candidate wins the most votes, wins the seat. Single seat, single winner, all votes not for a winner are wasted (as explained last time). STV, on the other hand, has multiple winners for each constituency, and there is mathematical wizardry involving ranking so that everyone's wishes are expressed towards all candidates.
Alternative Voting involves, again, a single winner and a single seat, with no change to number of MP's or constituency sizes/boundaries. Under this system, a candidate MUST gain 50% of the vote. If there is no immediate winner, the candidate with the lowest share is ejected, and their secondary voting preferences are passed onto all the candidates. It is then more likely that 50% is attained. It could then happen again, if there is still not majority candidate. It's obvious there is the proportional "second wish" preference from STV, and indeed this is what makes it a form of Single Transferable Vote. But obviously there can only be one winner, who takes the seat for that area.
Again, there is the pressure to only vote for a strong party, to stop the "enemy" getting in. If the Labourites vote for Liberals, the one seat is in danger of going to the Tories, so you are going to have to keep to your party. The fact that everybody may approve of liberal is irrelevant; only the second preferences about the big two are ever going to be important since they are the dominant parties. Every vote not for obvious winners is wasted, since its your second preference which is going to decide the winner. After all, who is going to bet on Liberal Democrat candidates hitting 50% across the country? Coming third means you get nothing, and if you happen to be in a three-party race, you are eliminated and your second preference shared out.
Obviously there is a tone in the description that is somewhat disapproving of this change. In the spirit of full disclosure and bias, I do indeed believe this system is no real change. There is only the illusion of proportional representation, there will still be winner takes all seating systems, still massive benefits to the established parties, and still the ignorance of all lesser parties. The system seems on the face to be a want to move into, instead of wish expression, cannibalisation of the lesser parties to bolster their own power bases. When you factor in that the Conservative Party only offered this reform as a future referendum, it seems there was no real give or take to the conservative negotiations. Indeed, at this point, with protests outside meetings, there was always going to be a referendum on electoral reform.
Labour on the other hand have offered to legislate this (admittedly minor) reform, and promise a referendum to a real change, some form of proportional representation.
It seems the conservatives think the old way of doing things are obviously best, and the left wing parties want tentative steps towards a different, more equal future. Obviously this is one for the record books, next to "dog bites man" and "fire still hot".
No comments:
Post a Comment