Analysis has previously been carried out on the 2005 election, as to what would have happened under AV. In this case it's suggested that Labour would have increased their majority under AV, despite the controversy over the war.
These analysis' are always risky. For a start they assume that every person would vote exactly the same first preference under AV, something we know isn't the case, even on the most conservative estimates of tactical voting. Secondly they assume preferences based on a leading question.
"If the voting paper had required you to give two votes, in order of preference, which party would you have put as your second preference?"
Thirdly this study is a national study that, despite likely being broken down in to key political areas (North West, South West, London, etc), can't give an accurate appraisal of local views and deviation from the national average.
So on several levels we should be cautious about the study. Realise I'm saying this in relation to the broadness of what information is used, and as such not only could it be over-estimating the benefit Labour would have gained...it could also be under-estimating it. My only suggestion here is that it's not a good practice to rely on this data too heavily.
But let's assume this study is bang on.
Is it proof that AV would be less fair?
Arguments can easily go that as it would make parliament less proportional, this is less fair. It's a fine argument, legitimate...but unfortunately not one that has any place in a debate between two systems that simply do not care about proportionality. One year's system that provides a less proportional result could provide a more proportional the next...it's based solely on spread of opinion, not the system.
For example, in 2005 AV would have made (if we believe the study 100%) things less proportional. In 1992 it would have made things more proportional. It's swings and round abouts, based on the *real* popularity of the parties.
The thing with 2005 is that if Labour really would have won a greater majority under AV, it'd be because that's what people wanted.
It would have come down to the fact that there were more constituencies where Lib Dems were placed third than where other parties were placed third, and that Lib Dem voters would tend to feel that (despite the centralised campaign being so vocal about the war) voting for Labour is a better evil than letting the Tories in with their (at the time) heavy anti-immigration and anti-poor agenda.
This comes back to my previous post about what is "fair". Crying about the potential for someone you (as an individual) really dislike getting a better share of the House of Commons under AV...and claiming this is proof of AV's failing, completely ignores the greater will of the nation, and ignores the narrow relevance of your own individual view on what is a "correct" result.
In 2005 less people will have got their first preference under AV, assuming that under FPTP everyone has voted entirely the way they truly wanted the result to go, but they would have got a parliament that really represents the balance of their views from a local context, not allowing (in this case) Tories to pick up seats where local constituents would rather have backed Labour than the Tories.
In short, if 2005 would have caused a larger majority for Blair, it's because people still really didn't get along with the Tories on a constituency by constituency basis.
"It'd be because that's what people wanted". Really?
ReplyDeleteThe question here is not "If you had to choose, would you prefer a Labour or a Conservative government." I'm willing to accept that more people would have chosen Labour.
The question is rather, "would you prefer a Labour government with a larger majority?" I suspect the answer to that question would have been "No".
The core of my objection to AV is that, all other things being equal, it exaggerates the binary effects of FPTP, mainly be reducing the geographical anomalies. In other words, at the present time there are seats where Labour votes pile up and seats where Conservative votes pile up, but more of the former; and there are seat where Labour squeak home and seats where Tories squeak home, but more of the latter. That's basically why FPTP, while it disadvantages the Tories under the present constituency spread, does so less than AV. For the past 20 years, the major beneficiary of FPTP has been Labour; AV would, other things being equal, tend to exaggerate that effect.
This has nothing to do with what people really want. Or, if it does, it is so brutally majoritarian as to harm multi-party democracy. You write that "claiming this is proof of AV's failing, completely ignores the greater will of the nation". But the "greater will of the nation" is a concept usually advanced by dictators. The logical conclusion of "the greater will of the nation" is a one party state.
To paraphrase Churchill, FPTP is the worst of all electoral systems, apart from AV.
"The question here is not "If you had to choose, would you prefer a Labour or a Conservative government." I'm willing to accept that more people would have chosen Labour."
ReplyDeleteGiven the geography of 2005, that's precisely the question.
"The question is rather, "would you prefer a Labour government with a larger majority?" I suspect the answer to that question would have been "No"."
That's a question our voting systems on offer have no right to try and answer. We keep trying to mould the FPTP or AV model to be more proportionate in this way, to be fair...but it's impossible through anything other than fluke. Even if we are locally voting for our favourite national party of government, the limit of the system is only ever to return one MP.
In a single member constituency system, we cannot talk about what people want or don't want in terms of parliamentary majorities, 1) because we have no power to control that and 2) because even analysising the vote shares of "first preferences" nationally, considering that there are a proportion of people that must take their local situation in to account and vote tactically, is a fools game.
"The core of my objection to AV is that, all other things being equal, it exaggerates the binary effects of FPTP, mainly be reducing the geographical anomalies."
It can exaggerate or lessen, dependent on geography. Nationally the "Exaggeration" is down to the interplay of different preferences from constituency to constituency, and how they balance out.
"AV would, other things being equal, tend to exaggerate that effect."
Except with a boundary review also on the way you can't know that and, if it were the case, it's still precisely the wishes of each local constituency and that is entirely fair and democratic.
"The logical conclusion of "the greater will of the nation" is a one party state."
If you want to take my meaning and bastardise it sure. My terminology is that each individual constituency states which MP they want, the truly popular get through, this is very representative democracy...it seems like your hatred of Labour is ultimately what drives you here.
FPTP and AV are both nasty systems that propagate parties over policy, but to claim at all that AV isn't simply returning results that people actually want is wishful and arrogant thinking.
Right now most constituencies in the UK most likely wanted a left-leaning economic recovery policy rather than the Tory right leaning one...yet due to vote splitting and lack of being able to co-ordinate a split leftist vote against an almost completely unitary rightist one we ended up the other way around. Under AV we'd have a government that represented the truest views of each constituency, or so it seems, without it we've got a government plan that potentially has less mandate than it's opposition version.
It's this kind of reason why I'll always vote for AV over FPTP, because people's collective opinions should come first in any election.