With all eyes on the Scottish Election and Alex Salmond’s tussle with Iain Gray in the race to be First Minister, it’s easy to forget there’s another important vote taking place on Thursday. The referendum on the Alternative Vote could herald the biggest change to British democracy since devolution. Here, Stirling University politics expert Dr Peter Lynch explains how AV works and the effect it may have, while Labour MP Thomas Docherty and Labour MSP candidate Jenny Marra show the divisive nature of the debate even within parties by arguing for and against.
Referendums are rare things in British politics and May 5 sees only the second referendum to take place across the whole country. The only previous example was the European referendum way back in 1975. The current referendum came about due to the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats at Westminster, which pledged to hold a referendum on the alternative vote (AV) for electing MPs to the House of Commons.
A good starting point for AV is to realise what it isn’t. It isn’t a system of proportional representation. It also isn’t simply the current system, though it has some similarities.
Like first past the post, you only get one ballot paper and only elect one MP in one constituency. The point about AV is that it requires each MP be elected by 50% of the votes as opposed to the current system where winner takes all, often on a minority share of the vote.
AV is a preferential system meaning you rank your preferred candidate or party 1, 2, 3, etcetera, rather than simply putting an X on the ballot paper.
You don’t have to use all these preferences, it’s up to you how many you use. When it comes to the election count itself AV requires 50% so if all the first preferences are counted and one party gets 50% then their candidate is elected as the MP.
However, often this doesn’t happen. In last year’s Westminster election there were 22 seats in Scotland where MPs were elected on the first count with 50% of the vote, but 37 seats where they weren’t, and it is here that the preference system comes into play as it would have done across all the seats in and around Tayside had AV been in operation.
Imagine you live in a seat contested by four parties. If no one gets 50% first time round then the second preferences are counted. However, this is counted in a particular manner, which is where things can get a bit confusing.
This count starts with reallocating the second preferences of the fourth party, which is knocked out as it came last. If that means one party gets 50% then they win.
If no one reaches 50% at that stage then the preferences of the third party are counted. This will then mean the winner from the remaining two parties has reached 50%.
What does it all mean for you? Well, if you are a tactical voter or a voter living in a seat where your preferred party is never going to win then AV has clear plus points. You can use the preference system to vote for your favourite party as well as your second choice party, knowing that this second vote will help elect an MP more in tune with your politics rather than see your vote wasted on your favourite party.
AV might also mean that parties change their approach in election campaigns by telling you who they see as potential allies. In Australia, the main parties signal to their own supporters who to give preferences to.
AV might also mean parties need to appeal to more than just their core voters to gain enough preferences to get more than 50% of the vote as AV requires.
Two other things are worthwhile pointing out about AV.
First, if it had been used at the last UK election, it would have meant more Liberal Democrat MPs and fewer Conservatives, but not dramatically so.
Second, obviously linked to the previous point, there is the likelihood of coalitions through AV that might be good or bad. More Lib Dems in 2010 would have opened the possibility of a coalition with Labour or a much stronger Lib Dem presence in the current coalition with the Conservatives.
Finally, the outcome of the AV referendum might have effects on the current UK coalition in London. Both a Yes and a No vote have implications for the relationship between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in coalition as it was part of the coalition deal.
The referendum itself has opened up divisions between the two parties that have been paraded in the media for weeks and might also cause deep divisions longer term between government ministers, backbench MPs and ordinary party members.
There is more than just electoral reform at stake in this referendum.
Dr Lynch is a senior lecturer in politics at the University of Stirling. He was educated at Strathclyde University and the London School of Economics. He teaches and researches on Scottish politics, nationalism, political parties and devolution. Author of a number of books on these areas, he’s also in demand as a media commentator on Scottish elections and by-elections.Thomas Docherty Why I’m voting ‘no’People in Scotland are used to different electoral systems, so the referendum isn’t about the difficulties of coping with something new and different. For us it’s a case of been there, done that.
But there are other issues, very important issues, which should worry us.
We’re being asked to say goodbye to one person, one vote in Westminster elections. What’s on offer is the alternative vote.
This would mean people who support minority parties could expect their vote to be counted five or six times, while the people who support mainstream parties would still have just the one vote. It would make a mockery of our democracy.
Many people like the first past the post system (used for Westminster) and many like proportional representation (used for Holyrood) but I don’t think anyone seriously believes the alternative vote is a good option. It isn’t fair and it isn’t effective.
Under AV it is possible for the person who comes second in a Westminster constituency to be declared the winner. He or she might be the first choice of only one in four voters.
Because AV would lead to more hung Parliaments we’d have the bizarre situation of the party that comes third, the Liberal Democrats, having a near permanent seat in government.
I want to preserve one person, one vote for future Westminster elections. That’s why I’m voting No in the referendum.
Thomas Docherty is Labour MP for Dunfermline and West FifeJenny Marra Why I’m voting ‘yes’Why AV? Because it’s more democratic and much fairer.
In fact, it’s simply a far better first past the post system with a post to pass at 50%. Under the current system, there is no post, no threshold, no target to be elected.
An MP can be elected with 30% of the vote, when 70% of the voters rejected her. Barely one in three MPs is supported by a majority of his or her voters. What’s fair or democratic about that?
Would it be complicated? I don’t think so. The voter uses 1, 2, 3 to rank their preferences. I would also argue that if a new system of AV came in, voters should retain the right to vote once with a cross if they wanted to stick with one preference. Voters who want to preference more candidates would use the numbers.
Would it give more power to extremist parties? No. AV prevents extremist candidates slipping in by the back door with minority support. Winners need the goodwill of the majority.
Nick Clegg called AV a miserable little compromise. I would call it the best of both worlds because it maintains the very important link between the constituency and the MP. The Liberals would be happy to see the link go. That link holds politicians accountable and makes them focus and fight for local issues.
In an age where we demand politicians to work harder, care more, listen carefully and be worthy of our vote, making us fight for 50% of the vote seems a sensible and fair solution.
Jenny Marra is a North East regional list candidate for Scottish Labour in this week’s Holyrood election.