The debate on whether we have a referendum on May 5 is over. The debate on how we vote must now begin in earnest.
Having a referendum on changing the House of Commons voting system to the alternative vote is a Labour project. The party promised this in its 2010 manifesto –“to ensure that every MP is supported by the majority of their constituents voting at each election”. While Labour MPs and party members can vote as they choose in the referendum, that commitment was made because, as a party, we believed making the change was the right thing to do.
Ironically, we are now getting the referendum as a concession the Liberal Democrats wrestled from the Conservatives as the price of coalition. It is coupled with a grubby deal over partisan proposals over boundary changes and reducing the number of MPs. But that concession would not have been made without the offer from Labour. The circumstances that have given us the referendum should not affect our principled position.
AV is not new to Labour. We have used it for years to select candidates and elect leaders. It is widely used by trade unions. If we think it the best system for finding the most popular candidates in our internal elections, why should we resist it for public ones?
The system is a simple one. We rank the candidates, giving “1” to our first choice, “2” to our second and so on for however many candidates we choose to rank. If no one has a majority of first preferences, then the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated and their ballot papers transferred to the voters’ second choices. The process continues until a candidate wins by passing the 50 per cent mark.
At the 2010 election, under the first-past-the-post system, only a third of MPs got absolute majorities. There is no guarantee that the others were the most popular choices in their constituencies. Think how many Tories won their seats in the Margaret Thatcher years because the opposition vote was split between other parties. Such a situation would not arise under AV.
And AV has other important advantages. Fewer seats would be safe and more elections would be competitive. A candidate who might win at present, but without 50 per cent of first preferences, could be overtaken by another through transferred votes – as happened with the elections of Ed Mililband as Labour leader and Harriet Harman as deputy leader. Fewer safe seats mean more MPs would need to work harder to maintain the support of their electors.
AV would also end tactical voting. Even in Labour’s most hopeless constituencies, people could vote for their Labour candidate, showing their support for the party, but also knowing that their vote would not be wasted as they could still influence which non-Labour candidate won. And Labour voters need not be afraid of showing other preferences – their votes would count for Labour and no one else until it was certain that Labour could not win. More importantly, votes for other but smaller progressive parties need not be lost – AV could gather them in support of Labour candidates.
If, as I believe, there is a centre-left majority in this country, AV is a system that will ensure, through vote transfers from eliminated candidates, that there is a centre-left majority at Westminster. No wonder the Tories oppose it.
AV is good for democracy and good for Labour. Being seen to be on the side of democracy and fairness can only make the party more attractive to voters.
AV’s detractors point to simulations of recent elections which show that while AV might have enabled Labour to win some seats, there are others the party might have lost. Although AV is not a proportional system (and full PR would make it near impossible for any party to win on its own), it would serve to make most election results a little more proportional, slightly strengthening the Liberal Democrats. While Nick Clegg and his party are deeply unpopular at present, we should remember that, over the years, the Lib Dems have been much closer to Labour than the Conservatives. Under AV, that would have been to our advantage.
In 2010, a main reason that a Labour-Lib Dem coalition did not emerge from the post-election negotiations was that the two parties together would not have had a majority. Under AV, they would have had more than 50 per cent of the seats and the present mess might have been avoided.
So, AV is more democratic and there is much for Labour to gain from it. That is why Ed Miliband is backing it, together with leading Labour MPs such as Alan Johnson, Ben Bradshaw, John Denham, Tessa Jowell, Douglas Alexander and Peter Hain, as well as Compass and leaders of the Fabian Society and Progress. When the referendum comes, will you be on their side or that of David Cameron?
Ken Ritchie is a former chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society
