Top YES to AV votes... notice anything?

Here are the ten areas with the strongest YES to AV vote... notice anything about them?

Hackney	60.68%
Glasgow Kelvin	58.78%
Islington	56.92%
Haringey	56.62%
Lambeth	54.69%
Cambridge	54.32%
Oxford	54.11%
Southwark	52.73%
Camden	51.4%
Edinburgh Central	51.36%

Well, I'll give you a hint... the Lib Dem and Labour vote are pretty variable across these ten, urban areas. Hackney is a strong Labour seat, Glasgow has just been rocked by the SNP and Cambridge is Lib Dem, for example.

However, they are all areas where the Greens either have councillors or, in the case of London, had councillors until the dual general election /council election last year.

Interesting... just to note I think this is about demographics not the spectacularness of the Green Party's contribution to the YES campaign which was vigorous in places like Camden and Islington and almost non-existent in Edinburgh and Glasgow as there were other things on our minds!

Six Simple Lessons From the AV referendum

Now the dust is settling I thought I'd quickly summarise the lessons from the AV campaign for the next referendum (!). As always in politics there are things we can influence and things we cannot, but we have to take it all into account.

• Ask the right question:
  
  The last time we had a referendum in this country it was on a burning question that the public cared passionately about. This time we had a referendum on something that most of the public didn't even know existed before the campaign began.
  
  If you have to explain what your campaigning for, before you explain why, you've already started at a disadvantage. It gave the no campaign the opportunity to just shake their heads and say 'this all looks terribly complicated'.
  
  
• Context:
  
  There's no denying it but many people voted no in order to punish the Lib Dems. As many Lib Dems are beginning to understand there is no anti-coalition vote, but an anti-Lib Dem vote. The referendum was inextricably bound up with the Liberal Democrats and as the election results show their brand is now thoroughly toxic, contaminating anything it touches.
  
  The campaign, which was largely run by the Lib Dems, looked, felt, smelt and tasted Lib Dem even down to dodgy statistics and hectoring insistence that people HAD to vote for AV. This was a massive mistake allowing the Lib Dems to run the campaign who were responsible for setting the utterly mistaken tone, but then again who else wanted it?
  
  
• Win over the opposition don't entrench them:
  
  Much time and effort was spent in the yes camp attempting to win people to the idea that AV would exclude the Tories from government. That's a bad reason to vote for AV as it a) ties a permanent change to temporary political conditions and b) hardly sounds like a more democratic system if it's designed to exclude a large, significant party.
  
  Strategically it was a disaster though. Whilst the no campaign successful managed to persuade large numbers of Labour supporters to vote no, the yes campaign effectively spent time and energy convincing Tories that it was not in their interests to vote yes. You cannot win a majority whilst going out of your way to ensure that one in three voters will definitely vote against you.
  
  
• Focus on the public not your rivals:
  
  

  

  YouGov asked was the no campaign dishonest?

  For the last months you couldn't turn around for seeing a yes campaigner miserably slagging off the no campaign. Over and over again we were subjected to bitching about how negative the no campaign were, while the no campaign focused on it's simple message that if you win the most votes you should win the seat.
  
  

  

  YouGov asked was the yes campaign honest?

  Instead of focusing on why the electorate were going to vote no the yes campaign focused on the argument that the no campaigners were horrid. Having associated no voters with nasty bugbear Nick Griffin, winner of the most Parliamentary seats David Cameron and the living dead, no voters tired of being insulted and rejected the yes campaign.
  
  
• It's a political argument not a technical one:
  
  When yes campaigners threatened to use ASA or the courts or the electoral commission to get their way they inadvertently sent out the message that they couldn't win the political argument. Instead of making the positive case for a change that many of them never asked for they focused on whether the no campaign were right on the cost of the change, the fact the no campaign had more financial backing and legal manouvers.
  
  People don't warm to campaigners who try to use the courts to silence their opponents, and they care even less for those who unsuccessfully try to do so.
  
• Make your case:
  
  Despite protestations to the contrary the NO campaign made their case. It was simple and effective and took one or two sentences to articulate. The YES campaign, when they took time off from slating their opponents, made a meal out of explaining AV and tended towards a series of unsupported assertions (like AV dealing with overblown expenses or that the system would make MPs work harder).
  
  A large proportion of the public were left unconvinced that they understood the case for AV, let alone whether they agreed with it or not. That time spent threatening the rival campaign with legal action could have been more usefully employed talking to the public about why this reform no one had been asking for was the right reform to adopt.

The NO campaign organisers were not geniuses nor paragons of virtue, I believe they could have been beaten. Certainly there were sincere campaigners who argued honestly and effectively, but they were let down by their leadership. Both sides deserved better and the nation deserved a higher level of discussion during our second ever UK wide referendum.


Most of all we deserved a referendum on a reform that millions have actually been calling for and that the public understand. The fight for proportional representation goes on but thankfully AV is now off the agenda for a generation.

Last thoughts on AV and Nick Griffin

Although the unofficial YES to AV campaign has improved the quality of argument in the last couple of weeks, allowing me to warm to the idea of a YES vote somewhat (see Gary, Nan, Alan, Luke and Matt) the "You can't vote the same way as Nick Griffin" argument still persists despite being a) extremely insulting to label most of the nation fascists if they don't agree with you on AV and b) being a way of giving this figure of little public significance a central role in the election.

Child killer Jon Venables is voting YES today because he thinks it will boost the chances of the far right winning seats, but you wont see anyone telling YES people they must agree with a Nazi child killer though will you? No. Because it's a facile argument based on fear and loathing not political analysis.

Grown ups will be voting YES or NO today based on which system they prefer. However there have been some serious attempts to bully people into voting one way or the other or just appeal to people on tribal grounds.

Some Labour MPs have been arguing that there would be slightly less Labour MPs under AV (which is actually not a permanent fact, despite the case that it would have been true at the last election). That's not a great reason to postpone democracy though, is it? Nor is it an argument that's likely to persuade people who don't care how many MPs Labour has.

Likewise other Labour MPs have been arguing that people should vote YES because David Cameron is voting NO. As poor arguments go this has to be one of the worst. If the YES campaign wants to win the referendum it *has to* have a large proportion of Tory voters vote YES, but instead of trying to split away Tory voters from the official line it has actually spent time trying to cement them to their leader by touting the argument that YES to AV is an anti-Tory vote.

Seeing as the Tories won more votes than any other party at the last election that's a big demographic to deliberately alienate.While supporters of Greens, Lib Dems and Labour (marginally) will have a majority of YES voters the massive weight of NO votes from the Tories will almost certainly deliver a defeat for the referendum.It's not even true to say that AV is anti-Tory as AV in Australia has served the right very well indeed delivering a sterile two party system.


Whether the lessons will have been learned about how half measures can fail where real reform might have succeeded I don't know. I certainly do hope that the lesson that you don't put Lib Dems in charge of political campaigns has been learned as the insufferable whining, hectoring and dishonesty coming from the official YES campaign has done much to set back the chances of a YES vote.

Some notes from other places: Green Christian on how AV might effect politics, Stumbling and Mumbling on where AV could lead, Deborah Orr on how the Lib Dems are dolts, Left Foot Forward has a newspaper roundup and Tom Clark compares reform to playing cards.

Guest Post: Why People In Favour of PR should vote YES

This is a guest post from Cory Hazelhurst who blogs at the rather excellent Paperback Rioter. He's trying to persuade me to be less ambivalent without realising that ambivalence... well, that's my thing. Good luck to him anyway.

No2AV Yes2PR was launched by David Owen some months ago. Originally the Yes campaign decided not to challenge their arguments at all. This was decided, as I understand it, for two reasons.Firstly, it seemed like a small irrelevance at the time. Secondly, launching this group undermined all the arguments that the No camp were making: that AV would lead to more coalitions, that we need to keep FPTP etc.

Ultimately not challenging this argument has been a mistake (one of many) from the Yes campaign. It's led to many people who want electoral reform either voting No or, like Jim, have been very ambivalent about AV because it's not a proportional system.

Jim has very generously allowed me to write a piece explaining why people in favour of PR should vote Yes on Thursday.

The main argument I've heard against voting Yes on Thursday is that a Yes vote would be a roadblock to further reform. If anything, the opposite is the case.

For evidence that AV could lead to more electoral reform, people need look no further than the Political Studies Association briefing paper on the Alternative Vote. It was compiled by Dr Alan Renwick with the help of many leading political scientists, including Professors John Curtice, Simon Hix and Pippa Norris.
This is what the PSA has to say on the subject:

“It is clear that changing the electoral system is easier where change has already recently happened: the idea of reform is no longer so radical; more people are familiar with the reform options; there are fewer interests vested in the status quo. Four established democracies – France, Italy, Japan, and New Zealand – have introduced major reforms to their national electoral systems in the last thirty years. Two of these – France and Italy have subsequently instituted further major reforms, while Japan passed a further smaller reform, and New Zealand will hold a referendum creating the possibility of another major reform later this year. (p21)”

After changing the voting system in 1991, Italy changed it again two years later and again in 2005. New Zealand held a referendum to change from First Past the Post in 1992, and is holding another referendum asking voters whether they want to change the system later this year.

To say, then, that AV would be a roadblock for reform is completely missing the point. It would actually be a small but significant step towards reform in the future, and make future reform much more likely than a No vote.

Another argument I've heard on the blogosphere is that AV would hold up reform because it makes it harder to change to a proportional system:

“Truly proportional systems such as that Mixed Member, Largest Remainder or D’hont system, simply ask people to express a party preference and then use centrally controlled party lists and / or second tear ‘top-up’ constituencies to allocate seats to parties on a proportional basis. By allowing voters to rank individual candidates AV is actually a step away from these kinds of system.”

This isn't quite right though. AV would be a small but logical step towards something like Single Transferable Vote. After all, AV is STV for single member constituencies. Another logical step would be to lead to something like AV+, as recommended by the Jenkins Commission. This would be a hybrid of a list top-up system and MPs elected by, you guessed it, the Alternative Vote. So AV would still be a step forward to getting any proportional system.

I'm of the view that people should vote Yes simply because AV is a better system. However, even if you would prefer a more radical change than AV, vote Yes on Thursday, because that's the only way you're going to get it.

Independent YES campaigners

While the official YES campaign has been piss poor from the beginning, others inclined towards voting yes but understandably frustrated by the official campaign have begun to produce their own materials, and who can blame them?

Take this wonderful example of cat / geeking / political propaganda combo. What could be finer?



In a similar vein the coffee / beer image doing the rounds is a thousand times more convincing as an explanation than anything the yes campaign has produced, relying on that tired combo of moaning about the other side whilst talking a load of bollocks.

It really takes some chutzpah to insinuate everyone thinking of voting no was somehow a bit like Nick Griffin or that tactical voting would be abolished or that a winning candidate has to get more than 50% of the votes cast to win (which doesn't attract me anyway even if it was true, which it isn't). But let's not pretend that no campaigners have been pure as the driven snow, as this Australian blogger points out, I'm juust a bit tired of hearing yessers claim the no side are always lying without ever acknowledging the yes camp has continually made factually untrue statements.

Incidentally, I really wish that both sides would stop exclusively using examples where someone who did not come first under the first preferences wins the final round. Although the purpose of AV is to introduce exactly such a possibility it is in fact normally the first placed candidate who wins. AV doesn't actually change that much and both camps have together created an impression that the second placed candidate (or even third placed, or lower) would win quite often, which a lot of people don't like the idea of.

It's exactly the exaggerated claims on both sides that have been such a turn off, as web of evil so brilliantly satirises. There are thoughtful things to say about AV (see for example Keith Flett, Hilary Wainwright, Gowers) or simply fun and funky things to say - but the Yes campaign just didn't want to say them.

The abolition of the dire Lib Dem bar charts would be a welcome advantage of AV but the Lib Dem staffed yes to AV campaign doesn't seem keen to highlight this advantage.

Personally one of the strongest arguments for AV is the undermining of tribalism in politics. I would love to see the end of the idea that if you like one party you must want all the others to expire. Only the most tedious party zealot thinks such things. If you don't have preferences between a specific Labour, Green, SNP, Lib Dem and Tory candidate in a constituency, for example, then I suspect your brain may have been replaced by a fossil and you're little use to anyone.

A politics without such firm borders between parties would, I think, be more honest, more thoughtful and more habitable for those people without the 'my way or the highway' instinct of many career activists. AV at least encourages us to think more in shades and nuance than the black and white of the us and them. That's partly why so many Labour people will be voting no trained as they are to regard their voters as their property by right.

At the end of the day there are good reasons to vote either way, and bad ones. A vote for or against because you think it might favour your party in the next election is a pretty vacuous and unprincipled reason to choose a system that we'll be using for decades to come, just as punishing either Clegg or Cameron when both care far more about how many of their party colleagues are elected on May 5th seems a bit pointless. A vote for or against because of how shit either campaign has been is also a pretty bad reason to decide when really the choice is between two, similar, electoral systems regardless of who their advocates are.

I'm glad to see more optimistic and fun messages coming out from the yes side, particularly after that dreadful TV ad where wankers with megaphones stood and hectored people about stuff AV would do fuck all about. I'm also glad the yes campaign have stopped their damn whining about the no camp having suddenly realised that it's the electorate they need to be thinking about, not their rivals.

At least the last week of campaigning might actually throw up some more laughs and real discussion, something that had been sadly lacking in the first months of the campaign. It's a shame most people will have gone to sleep on the subject by now.

The AV campaign videos

We now have both YES and NO to AV campaign videos and frankly my unimpressedness continues unabated. First we have the No camp making their case;



I'm slightly confused about the three films in one thing from the Noers here. While three separate short films is fine, splicing them into one reel feels rather clumsy and confused - a bit like their arguments I guess.

Certainly it's funny, although the concept that people can get in even though no one votes for them or that AV would lead to permanent coalition is utter tosh. The horse race part is clear and powerful, probably the strongest part of the broadcast and is all the more robust for relying on an honest preference for first past the post rather than simply attacking AV.

Having said that the final part, which we might as well label "AV is confusing" is also a pretty strong message. It relies on the gnawing doubt in many people's subconscious that voting is complicated. I find it slightly frustrating because it essentially makes out that the voters are going to have to conduct the count themselves, so the issue becomes whether it is simple to count (and it's obviously slightly more complicated to count than FPTP) rather than whether it is simple to vote, which of course it is. In fact it might even be simpler to vote in an AV election because you don't need to predict who the winners might be before marking your X.

Now to the Yes video



Sadly we have more tosh.

AV will make your MP work harder will it? There's absolutely no evidence for this at all. More than a third of seats at the last general election were elected with more than 50% of the vote. The handful of seats that would have changed hands at the last election had it been under AV were all marginal anyway - so it's hardly likely to solve the expenses problem (which is as bizarre a claim as any the No camp are making).

However, while the arguments are as weak as the No camp's the video itself is far, far weaker. It essentially paints Yes campaigners as hectoring twats. This may well be an accurate description of the Lib Dem cadre that make up the core team of the Yes campaign (which also explains why the campaign has managed to combine smugness, bullying, pathetic whinging and a host of mis-guided missiles) but it's hardly true of the majority of pro-AV people.

There are many good arguments you can make for AV and yet the Yes camp seems determined to paint the campaign in the Lib Dems' image - self-satisfied, dishonest bores whose idea of a conversation is dogmatically insisting that they have no choice but to vote the way they want you to. I believe this may well become a classic case of crash plus burn.

Currently the No camp appears to be seven points ahead in the polls but I can't believe that support for either side is on the basis of the official campaigns.

The AV safe-o-meter

Someone pointed me towards the site Voter Power which purports to "demonstrate the increase in voter power that AV would bring." So I popped in the details for Lewisham Deptford, where less than year ago I spent a tough General Election.

This was the result;

Now, I'm grateful for the stats and all but I do think the the idea that my "voter power would increase by 33%" is slightly misleading as it goes from "fuck all influence" to "still fuck all influence". If you live in Lewisham Deptford your vote doesn't make any difference under either system. An increase of 33% makes it sound like there's be a meaningful change, when there hasn't.

This is the key problem with single constituency elections (and Presidential elections) in that it is a combination of winner takes all and a postcode lottery. Under both systems the votes of those who live in Lewisham Deptford simply do not give the people the same say as those who live in marginal constituencies - and even they, generally, are only getting a choice between two parties to misrepresent them.

Under proportional representation every voter's vote is of equal weight - no matter where they live. It also means that in Parliament every political position with significant minority backing has a voice. For me that's what democracy should be about, people's voices being heard - not one where only the biggest tribes are allowed to speak.

Discussing AV: Rupert Read and Darrell Goodliffe

In the interests of broadening the discussion I asked Labour blogger Darrell Goodliffe and Green Rupert Read to set out the case for each side of the AV referendum. I asked them each to lay out their case either for a yes or no vote and then gave them a right of reply.

Rupert Read: There’s a good old saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But BRITISH POLITICS is BROKEN. Our electoral system is unfit for purpose. (It was designed for a two-Party system: it can’t cope with a multi-Party system.) We need to fix it: Ergo, vote #Yes2AV: http://www.yes.greenwordsworkshop.org/

So: What’s the case for voting NO? These are the two lines I hear:

1) ‘AV is good for extremists’.

Simply a lie. See me recently on ITV, from 8 minutes in, here. AV is the worst of all possible systems for extremists such as the BNP. Which is presumably why the BNP are vigorously opposing it... AV, a system in which voters can ‘gang up’ on unpopular Parties, will help ensure that the BNP never gets elected to Westminster - and moreover, if introduced in local government elections, would lead to the defeat of virtually all their Councillors. AV would drastically reduce the bane of ‘tactical voting’ that’s a necessary evil for voters when a multi-party political system is squeezed into a two-party electoral system. In the process, it would shut the door on the electoral prospects of the BNP... But if you want Nick Griffin to wake up with a big smile on May 6th, then vote NO...

2) ‘To hurt the LibDems, vote NO’.

The NOtoAV campaign, understandably (given that they have no constructive arguments to offer) are trying to turn the AV referendum into a referendum on Nick Clegg. This is a cynical way to treat a hugely important constitutional question; but there’s another reason, less obvious, why it’s wrong: Nick Clegg's Party will not benefit from AV. Under AV, you can give your first preference to whoever you want to win. The Lib Dems might gain votes in areas where they are weak, under AV, as they will no longer be perceived as a "wasted vote" in those areas. But they will lose first preference votes in areas where they are strong, as people will no longer be compelled to vote for them tactically in order to cast a vote that is not "wasted". Losing votes where you are strong loses you seats; gaining votes where you are weak does not. (See Liberal Conspiracy, Rupert's Read). ...It simply isn’t true that AV will be good for Clegg’s Party!

…Look at those who are in favour of AV: Virtually all the ‘progressive’ elements in Labour, including of course the Milibands and Compass plus Hilary Benn, Jon Cruddas, John Denham, Sadiq Khan, Michael Meacher, John McDonnell, Joan Ruddock…; the Greens; plus most of ‘civil society’ including notably organisations such as Operation Black Vote. Look at those who are arraigned against AV: the entire right-wing press, the Tories, BNP, Taxpayers Alliance, a bunch of ultra-right-wing businessmen and climate-deniers who are funding NO… and the most tribal, uninspiring elements of Labour: Prescott, Beckett, Blunkett… Darrell, do you feel happy in the company you keep: Griffin, Cameron, Hague (Open Democracy), Murdoch, Dacre, Guido Fawkes (Rupert's Read) and Matthew Elliott?...

 

Why I am NO to AV....

Darrell Goodliffe: Cards on the table time; I support electoral reform (to AV+ or a Additional Member System). However, a change to AV is the wrong change to make and since that is what is on the ballot paper it's AV compared to First Past the Post we have to discuss; not FPTP v our dream system.

A Yes Vote will not lead to further reform: Labour AV supporters overwhelmingly favour a stance of 'AV and no further'. The Liberal Democrats are facing an electoral apocalypse; whichever system the next election is held under and the Conservatives, well we all know what they want. Also, the Yes camp 'upselling' AV as something it isn't; proportional in any way shape or form, means that if it triumphs, people will rightly ask what's the point of another change rather than clamour for more. I am sure comrades reading this will pipe-up 'what about the Greens'....which leads me to my next point....

AV and smaller parties.... AV does not increase the chances of more MP's from smaller parties being elected. This is due to both the 50% threshold and the preference system. I am a member of Labour. I would under AV happily cast my second preference for the Greens. This would however, be pointless because my second preferences wont matter a jot; Labour will not be eliminated before a conclusion is reached where I live. However the preferences of the smaller parties under AV are unfairly weighted because the smaller parties are most likely be eliminated. It is inconsistent to claim AV will benefit the Greens and not the BNP in the same breath; the BNP's vote nationally is much higher than the Greens (sadly!)and therefore its their preferences that will need to be chased more often. Preferencing without proportionality is undemocratic and gives the second preferences of small party voters an unfair weight and makes some votes more 'equal' than others.

AV won't end tactical voting.... All it will do is shift the site of the tactical battle to peoples preferences, especially those people who vote for smaller parties. This is exactly what happened during the Labour leadership election where supporters of the three candidates who were never really in the running were assiduously targeted by the camps of both the Milibands.

AV doesnt ensure MP's elected by 50% of the electorate... Again, the Yes camp wants to have its cake and eat it; it says, 'Don't worry, AV is just like FPTP because you don't have to use your preferences'. However, if people don't then MP's will be elected by less than the magic 50% because those votes will simply stop being counted in the later rounds. This destroys another argument; that AV ends wasted votes. In my example above, all my subsequent preferences were wasted because my first choice wasn't eliminated and if somebody doesn't cast all their preferences then their vote isn't counted if their first choice Party is eliminated so theirs is too.

Change cannot just be for changes sake. It has to be the right change and the brutal fact is that AV is the wrong change; above anything else that is why I will be voting No on May 5^th....

 

Rupert's response to Darrell: 

Let me take Darrell's arguments in turn:

"A Yes Vote won’t lead to further reform": Irrelevant. The question is whether AV is better than FPTP. As I've shown, it is. …But furthermore: is further reform MORE likely if AV is voted down? If anyone agitated for PR during the next generation, after AV had been defeated, the answer would come back clearly: ‘Britain has rejected even the modest move to AV; so it is POINTLESS offering voters PR’…

"It’s inconsistent to claim AV will benefit Greens and not BNP": Plain wrong, as I’ve shown. The BNP oppose AV because they are HATED – hated extremist Parties hate AV for good reason… Meanwhile, it’s AV that has enabled Greens in Australia to get their first MP elected.

“AV won't end tactical voting”: Duplicitous wordplay. AV enables voters to vote for who they want, from 1st to last. It will end tactical voting as we know it, in which people vote only for the lesser of several evils.

“AV doesn’t ensure MPs elected by 50% of electorate”: Technically true, but deeply misleading. Under AV, virtually all MPs WILL be elected by a majority of voters; under FPTP, most MPs are elected by a minority.



Darrell's reply to Rupert:

I certainly would’t deny Rupert’s point that British politics is broken. Nonetheless, we have to ask a little more than if something is broken. It would be a poor doctor that just proclaimed a patient to be sick and not even offer a cure or, potentially even worse, offer the wrong kind of cure. My submission is that AV is not the right medicine for British politics.

I deal with Rupert’s first line-of-attack in my main text so won’t expand on that. Regarding AV and the Lib Dems; AV will objectively help the Lib Dem right, as most leftish Liberal Democrats have de-camped to either Labour or the Greens. So, Orange Bookers will use AV to cement their alliance with, and electoral dependence on the Conservative Party - AV is shown once again to weaken the left as a whole and strengthening the right, which will be the net effect of its introduction in other areas too.

Nonetheless, we have to judge AV on its merits as a system; the only effect that should be decisive is on our democracy and here its my submission that this ’miserable little compromise’ is deeply damaging and should be opposed.

The AV debate begins

Campaigning is beginning in earnest on the voting reform referendum. Party bigwigs, including Caroline Lucas got together to launch the Yes to AV campaign this week. By coincidence the Green's own Darren Johnson took part in a Radio Five Live experiment and managed to come an impressive second under AV (and a mere third under FPTP).

Out of the interesting people who are opposed to AV this week we have; David Owen, Paul Kenny of the GMB, Greater Surbiton, Paul Anderson, and Prospero.

Out of the interesting people who are in favour of AV this week are; Darrell Goodliffe, The New Statesman, Left Foot Forward, the Guardian editorial, and Daniel Knowles of the Telegraph.

There's also an interesting set piece debate in the Daily Mirror, the Spectator says things are getting nasty in the cabinet and the Economist just makes it all more complicated.

Martin Kettle thinks AV could make the Greens a force to be reckoned with. Newsnight are comparing how the two campaigns are using their freepost leaflets. No to AV will be launching next week.

Can we have alternatives to the AV campaigns please?

In my continuing attempt to shake off any remaining readers I've decided to use this space to come out against both the yes AND no campaigns on the referendum for AV. I mean I'm difficult to please at the best of times but the both of them seem to delight in parading false information, vapid slogans or just generally seem to be talking to themselves.

If we start with the no camp we have people who tried to demand a 40% turnout requirement despite the fact that they are perfectly happy with councillors, MEPs and MPs elected on any turn out at all - and of course these were people in the Lords who weren't even elected but think they have the right to run the country.

The fact that they are proud of this undemocratic motion fills me with disdain.

We also have their campaign saying the cost (which they claim is £250 million, although their full article shows they have no idea what the figure might be really) would be better spent on other things. Their video shows one gentlemen suggesting we could use the money on tax cuts. Well that's less than £5 per person over a year - I simply can't imagine what I'd spend my forty pence a month on, the possibilities are limited.

The no camp have a series of posters saying things like "He needs a bullet proof vest not an alternative voting system", "she needs a home help not...", "she needs a maternity unit not..." etc. I have to say they've made that invented £250 million stretch quite a way haven't they! The fact that this also appears to be an argument cancelling all future elections seems to have escaped them, but hey ho.

The main problem with the cost argument is that they seem to be including the cost of the referendum itself, which they are clearly encouraging people to take part in. They're fighting yesterday's battle and hoping we wont notice.

William Hague wrote to me today and said that AV was unfair because "supporters of extreme parties like the BNP would get their vote counted many times, while other people's vote would only be counted once."

Which is a deliberate attempt to imply it makes the election of BNP candidates more likely even though AV is actually stacked against minority candidates. As Rupert Read points out the BNP are campaigning against AV for that very reason.

Jo points out Labour are little better than the Tories and seem to be arguing that it's the number of Labour MPs that get elected that determine how democratic a system is. I keep forgetting how alienating I find tribalism and then up pops john Prescott to remind me.

But what of the yes camp? What have those blighters been up to? Well, for a start this week they decided to hitch themselves to the Royal Wedding. A spokesperson said "around the wedding it will be a coming-into-summer, more optimistic, more of a yes mood," That's another reason to vote against then as it's spitting in the eye of Clegg AND the royals - bonus.

And of course they've been telling us to "follow your heart", or in other words stop thinking about it. Simon from Bristol tells us "Lately it seems like people have fallen out of love with politics. We were out on the street at the weekend to make shoppers the best proposal they’ll get this year; to love their vote". That's the best proposal the good people of Bristol will have all year? I'd heard it was a miserable place but Christ alive it's worse than I thought.

Just for the record my heart tells me to vote no, but my head is still open to persuasion. When people tell me to follow my heart I tend to think "Interesting, I wonder what they don't want me think about too hard?"

In this case I assume it would be the fact that AV embeds the idea that only those with majority support should get representation in Parliament - the polar opposite of the kind of system I believe in, where every party is represented according to the proportion of the electorate that supports it. My system says 10% of the population should have the kind of representation they want - AV, of course, says if you can't win 50% of the vote you'd better learn to lump second, third or fourth best.

Rupert argued the other day that AV contains FPTP within it and therefore we can all relax and vote it through. Apart from highlighting the fact that AV is just another variant of single constituency voting that keeps minority voices out of Parliament it also completely fails to address the argument it claims to have put to bed.

Rupert says that FPTP fans can just use the one vote themselves and leave others to do as they please, but the argument, as anyone who has followed the debates will know, is that party loyalists don't think someone else's second, third or fourth preference should count as much as their first preference. In other words it is precisely the fact that others get to vote differently that irks them.

I don't have much time for this particular anti-AV argument but it's pretty disrespectful to not bother trying to understand someone's argument before claiming that "it really is unnecessary for FPTP-lovers to oppose AV at all."

There are lots of good arguments on both sides, but neither campaign seems to be putting these at the front of their stalls. Instead we have misinformation and empty posturing, which at times can feel little better than bullying.

Ed Miliband argued in the Guardian the other day that "AV will also force parties to admit where there is agreement between them, prising open our confrontational system so that similarities sometimes become as important as differences". I completely agree with this and one of the tempting points to AV is the idea that it could undercut the compulsion political parties suffer from of treating all other parties as "the enemy".

However, overall we just have point scoring or emotive tosh from the campaigns. While I will vote one way or the other in the referendum it wont be an endorsement of either campaign but on the basis of which system I'd prefer us to go to the next election with.

History hour: 1979 Scottish Devolution Referendum

With the up coming referendum in May on the Alternative Vote (AV) I thought now would be an appropriate time to take a look at previous referendums in the UK. One useful example might be the 1979 referendum on Scottish Devolution.

The movement for a more independent Scotland had been around for some time. Right at the start of the post-war years in 1948 there was a two million strong petition for a Scottish Parliament and although the tide washed in and out on the issue the current never quite went away.

In the October '74 General Election the Scottish National Party (SNP) who'd never won a single MP in a General Election before that year, won over 30% of the Scottish vote and 11 MPs, mainly at the expense of the Conservatives. To put that in context in 2010 the SNP won 19.9% (an increase of 2.3% on the previous time). The issue was alight again.

There was no support for Scottish independence at (Labour) cabinet level but the new SNP threat had to be scuppered somehow, so a referendum on devolution was approved, primarily as a way of heading off full scale independence.

One London Labour MP (George Cunninghame) successfully moved an amendment insisting that not only did the referendum have to pass with a simple majority at least 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour, effectively turning abstentions into no votes. A similar Parliamentary proposal was put forwards for the AV referendum last year incidentally, but it found little support.

The campaign in favour was split. SNP activists were divided between those who (understandably) saw the devolution question as a way of preventing independence and more pragmatic SNP activists who thought devolution was a step towards their goal.

Likewise, although Labour was officially in favour of the proposals they themselves had initiated high profile MPs, like Robin Cook, placed themselves firmly in the NO camp. The forces who would expect to have been in the YES lobby were horribly split among themselves culminating in two official YES campaigns (the SNP one and the one for everyone else) which enjoyed only lukewarm support at best from the hard line reformers.

Meanwhile the NO camp, with it's rather simple 'bollocks to it' message (that wasn't an official slogan mind) was united, clear in its message and, with a Labour government shuddering to a halt, a NO vote could be seen as a parting shot to the dying government from its detractors.

early polls had indicated a comfortable win for the YEs campaign but March '79 found the YES vote scrapping in by the skin of their teeth. 51.6% of those who voted, voted in favour. But George Cunninghame had his revenge because, on a 63.6% turnout, only 32.8% of the electorate had voted YEs and 30.8% had voted NO. The referendum fell on a technicality.

The referendum, having gone down to defeat, pulled the SNP down with it and later that year they went from 11 MPs to just two, so in many ways the halfway house of devolution DID put a hole in the SNP's historic rise.

Two light words of caution about drawing too strong a parallel with the AV referendum though. There are certainly parallels between the pro-independence campaigns of '79 and pro-PR people of 2011 - both are divided into 'step towards our goal' and 'attempt to head off our goal' groupings, but the fact that the devolution referendum lost does not in itself prove wrong those who said it would not lead to independence, even f you think they should have set their sights lower.

The second point is that while devolution falls short of independence it is an increase in the level of independence or autonomy of the Scottish nation while AV is not more proportional that First Past the Post (FPTP). In fact Av entrenches the concept that only those with majority support should be elected to Parliament at all - which is the opposite of the PR principle that minorities should still have a Parliamentary voice.

You can argue that demonstrating a willingness to reform, and reject FPTP, may make PR more likely (and I'd like to see that argument made rather than simply stated as a fact) you can argue that AV is preferable to FPTP - but what you cannot credibly do is argue that AV is more like PR than FPTP in the way that devolution certainly is more like independence than no devolution.

These caveats aside I think the '79 devolution referendum is instructive in a number of ways. It shows how a question posed deliberately in favour of a reform few were advocating is divisive among reformers. It shows how a divided campaign can lose ground to a united opposition and how, once a referendum is put, no matter what way the answer falls you've had your option for change for a generation.

AV reform update

The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill has finally passed through the Commons which means that an AV referendum will be held on the same day as the Scottish and Welsh Assembly elections (and others), fixed term Parliaments, redrawing of all the Parliamentary boundaries, and a significant reduction in the number of MPs.

Parliament had rejected amendments to allow voters a choice of what kind of voting system they would prefer, changing the date of the referendum so it did not skew the elections taking place on the same day and reducing the number of Ministers in Parliament to account for the fact that the number of backbenchers would have been drastically reduced.

The Lib Dems voted as an extremely disciplined block throughout this process against all motions to improve the bill and have been rewarded by a similarly disciplined block of Tories voting for a bill they'd rather have never existed.

In the end the bill passed with 321 votes for to 264 against. The bulk of those who voted against the unamended bill were Labour MPs but they were joined in the no lobby by Green Party MP Caroline Lucas.

She was rightly concerned about reducing the number of constituencies and that this was to be done without a proportionate reduction in Ministers, thus strengthening the executive. She was also worried that the date of the referendum would unduly distort local and national assembly elections and, of course, that the referendum itself fell far short of a real choice on electoral reform.

Caroline voted for the second reading of the bill (ie before the amendments were put) because she supports the principle of a referendum and wanted to have the opportunity to try and amend the bill – to increase the options on the ballot paper to include proportional representation and other voting systems, as well as to try and decouple the voting reform elements from the proposals to reduce the number of constituencies. Understandably she was very disappointed to see Lib Dems voting against their own policies, but then we've come to expect now I guess. The result was that the bill which MPs had to vote on yesterday in its third reading was unamended on the key issues and thus impossible for Caroline to support, much as she would have loved to back the principle of voting reform.

Of course, the Green Party of England and Wales doesn't go as far as our Northern Ireland counterpart who recently took the decision to campaign for a no vote in the referendum. We'll be having a modest campaign in favour of AV, with the safeguard that no significant party funds are to be spent on the campaign.

Certainly the referendum for AV itself is far from won and YouGov polling has shown that support for the move has fallen away. Just a few months ago polling was showing general support for the idea but now just 32% would vote in favour and 43% against, probably in order to give the government a kick.

If AV does pass the next general election will look very different to the last one. It's likely, for example, that the coalition parties will recommend a second preference for each other and all parties will have to take a firm decision on what recommendations they do or do not make to the electorate.

We have the exciting prospect of candidates praising each other in the hope of gaining second preferences and, of course, denouncing each other for their official choice of second best. I'm particularly interested to see the reactions of candidates who are 'endorsed' as second preference by the BNP or UKIP as well as curious as to what approach Green members want to take.

It may never happen of course, but whatever way the referendum goes the Lib Dems will have strengthened the power of the Parliamentary executive and demonstrated that there is no principle they wont ditch when expediency beckons.

17 MPs vote for a chance for real change.

Yesterday Parliament voted on whether to allow the people to decide on what kind of electoral reform they should go for. The majority of MPs decided to deny people the opportunity to opt for PR and instead instead that the only acceptable change was the dismal AV.

Moving the amendment Caroline Lucas said;

I am pleased to move the amendment that stands in my name and those of the hon. Members for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell). I welcome the fact that the Committee is at long last debating the possibility of a referendum on electoral reform, but it is crucial that the public choose the voting system, not the politicians. We do not often have referendums in this country, and now that we are planning to have one, the least that we can do is give people a real choice on their ballot papers. It is hugely disappointing that AV is the only alternative to first past the post in the Bill. As a result, the Bill fails to live up to the promise of genuine reform and of re-engaging people with the political process.

Amendment 7 is about giving people a real choice of electoral systems, because it is essential that the referendum question is not set up by the politicians to promote their favoured system. Of course, I have my views about which system would be preferable-the Green party advocates the additional member system as the fairest-but our amendment 7 is not about promoting a favourite system; it is about giving the public the options and allowing them to make their own choice. Rather than simply offering a narrow choice between first past the post and the alternative vote system, our amendment widens the question, so that in addition to the AV option, voters are given the opportunity to express a preference for one of the other main voting systems in elections for UK institutions.

There are two parts to our proposed question. The first part asks people whether they want a change from the current, first-past-the-post system; and for those who do, the second part offers the options of the alternative vote, the additional member system, and the single transferable vote, to be listed in order of preference. Our amendment is needed, because it is contradictory for the coalition to be talking about electoral reform while seeking to offer little more than a Hobson's choice, between AV and first past the post.

You can read the rest of the debate here.

Of the seventeen MPs who voted for the amendment we have a broad range of parties;

Long, Naomi (Alliance)

Mr Douglas Carswell (Con)
Evans, Jonathan (Con)
Hollobone, Mr Philip (Con)

Lucas, Caroline (Green)

Dakin, Nic (Labour)
Smith, rh Mr Andrew (Labour)
Austin Mitchell (Labour)

Llwyd, Mr Elfyn (PC)
Williams, Hywel (PC)

Durkan, Mark (SDLP)
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair (SDLP)
Ritchie, Ms Margaret (SDLP)

Hosie, Stewart (SNP)
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan (SNP)
Robertson, Angus (SNP)
Weir, Mr Mike (SNP)
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh (SNP)
Wishart, Pete (SNP)

Hmmm... there seems to be a party missing here. One party doesn't seem to have provided even a sinlge rebel in favour of giving the public the choice of PR. I'll give you a clue which one - their policy is for PR.

Monday's AV vote

I was just looking at Monday's vote on the AV referendum bill. What struck me is how tribal the voting was. Every Labour, SNP and Plaid MP voted against. All the Lib Dems (and the single Green) voted in favour. In fact, it was only the Tories who split their vote with ten (right wing) rebel MPs voting against the bill.

I can't be the only person who's disappointed by the old politics of these three line whip votes. I just don't believe that every Labour politician is against electoral reform or that every LibDem thinks AV is any sort of substitute for proportional representation.

I know Labour have been whinging that the reduction in the number of MPs from one arbitrary number to a slightly smaller arbitrary number would go against them - but for the life of me I can't see the principled argument against equalising the size of constituencies is. This just seems like self interest and point scoring to me.

If this suffocating conformity is any indication of what the campaigns around the referendum will look like I'd rather look the other way thanks.

Of course this weekend in Birmingham the Green Party will be discussing its position on the referendum and it looks like there's going to be strong views on both sides. I'd like to encourage members to attend the Green World fringe on Saturday;

Second preferences and beyond

Reading the Labour leadership 'you ask the questions' in today's Independent I came across this interesting question. "If you were forced to choose, which other candidate would you recommend your supporters to make their second preference? "

It's a good question because the answer tells you something useful about the candidate both politically and in terms of how open and honest they are prepared to be. Sadly the responses only told us that two of the candidates are brothers and the other candidates don't have the gumption to answer the question.

It's not a question that is only going to be faced by Labour leadership candidate. If AV is introduced for the next general election then every Parliamentary candidate in the country could well be asked a similar question and it's worth considering how candidates should approach it.

In Australia where AV has pretty much bedded down, having been introduced in 1919, every party issues a 'voting card' often after hefty negotiations with other parties. As you can see here sometimes parties give a detailed list and others they just give the top preference. Unlike the Labour leadership candidates Australian politicians do not shy away from the idea that some rivals are politically closer than others.

Despite the fact that sometimes candidates even tell the electorate to ignore the party's voting card locally, and bloggers put out their own versions (and obviously voters are free to vote how they like) these cards seem pretty influential not just in determining who wins close contests but also helping to define where parties stand on the political spectrum.

For instance Labor's comprehensive voting card (pdf) which details every candidate running in the country shows that they second preferenced Adam Bandt, the first Green MP, in Melbourne. Likewise the Greens recommended second preferences go to Labor in the same seat even though they were our closest rivals.

This seems pretty grown up to me.

I was really pleased that at the last London Mayoral elections the Greens backed a second preference for Livingstone, and on the doorstep it really did feel like it made some sort of difference in an election that is won or lost on second preferences. I'm also pleased that this is not a long term arrangement so that if Labour selects Oona King we can stick our fingers up at them - I'm certainly intending to.

That doesn't mean there's always an obvious second choice, but I really don't get those who refuse to answer on principle.

I'm in the Greens because, among other things, they want to liberalise immigration controls, they oppose the wars, oppose privatisation, want to tackle climate change and have an understanding of life that's not dominated by capitalism. Other parties will be closer or further away from those policies and so it's understandable that I'll have sympathy with some rival candidates and want to ensure others are not elected.

What's wrong with admitting that?

More to the point, if we do get AV, every party will have to decide what their approach is to second preferences. I hope that those who refuse to suggest how they'll be voting will be punished by the electorate as close minded tribalists who can't work with other parties.

It would be nice to think that politics can be a little bit more upfront than the Labour leadership candidates are prepared to be at least.

Keep the door to PR open

The door to proportional representation is not yet shut. While quite a few commentators are talking about how they'll vote in a referendum whose question is not yet set I happen to think that's a bit premature. The bill has not yet been written, nor has it gone through the process of amendment and voting. We don't know what is going to happen.

No one gives a toss about Alternative Voting, and if Proportional Representation was on the ballot the vast majority of those voting for reform would vote for PR over AV any day. It's one thing to accept a "miserable little compromise" has taken place, it's quite another to quit pushing before the battle for PR is lost.

I've no illusions about the Parliamentary. But if we're to keep PR on the agenda, not just for the Commons but also for the House of Lords we need to keep MPs aware that there are millions who want it. I've no idea how a referendum would go, but I do know that PR is the preferred system to replace FPTP for millions in this country.

Today I sent this letter to my MP, Joan Ruddock, and I think it would be a good idea if others were to write to their local MPs too.

Dear Joan Ruddock,

while I'm very happy to see that electoral reform is finally on the agenda for the House of Commons I'm far from happy that the coalition government wants to push for Alternative Voting (AV) as an attempt to head off a system of proportional representation.

AV, just like First Past The Post, leaves millions of people unrepresented and millions more massively under-represented. A truly democratic system would allow for every vote to count equally and for every party with significant support to have a voice in Parliament.

As yet the bill is not written and I'm writing to you to ask that you try to ensure that Proportional Representation is not taken off the agenda. The people should have the option of choosing PR rather than being given a non-choice between two systems that entrench the unfairness of our electoral system.

I'm sure the majority of MPs are fully aware that there is a mood for fundamental democratic reform, and that they are also aware that there has never been any public pressure for AV, this is simply a dodgy Tory stitch-up to prevent the public being allowed to choose a fairer electoral system.

There is still time to ensure that the case for PR is at least heard in Parliament and I'd like to ask you to help ensure that it is.

Yours,

Jim Jepps

If you do write and get an interesting response - let me know!