Well, the political news is full of the planned Commons vote-on- referendum for electoral reform. This is one occasion where my job and political beliefs as a Liberal Democrat coincide very nicely with my vocation and my research for a PhD in Political Theory – so I hope you’ll permit me to indulge in a little bit of an academic approach to this situation.
The system to be voted on is a classic – the old ‘AV’ system. This is no surprise. Elements of the Labour party have long preferred the Alternative Vote or ‘Instant Runoff Voting’ as the basis for electoral reform (though I suspect that the majority of that parliamentary party has never quite seen the point).
The political motivations of Labour’s move appear to be twofold. Firstly, they hope to show up the Conservatives as visibly opposed to a reform that, following the whole Adventure of the Abused Expenses, may be viewed as a popular measure to hand stronger accountability to the public.
The other reason boils down to electoral mathematics: by building the mandate for electoral reform now, Labour is eyeing a future election where the tories are still broadly the most popular party nationally, but will be unable to build anything resembling Labour’s 1997-2005 unofficial supermajority in the Commons. It’s possible that serious treatment of voting reform could only ever emerge from a vaguely leftist, unpopular government. The truth is that the vast majority of voters for Labour would rather vote for the Libdems than the Tories, and that most (though a few less) Libdems would rather have a Labour government than a Conservative one. Together they’re a (50%+) majority, so at the most basic level the maths of this make sense for Labour. Moreover, the motivation for such reforms evaporate with the promise of political success in the First Past the Post system (FPTP) – why kick away the ladder that let you climb up?
Labour’s political machinations aside, as a Liberal Democrat I can only get excited about any half-serious approach to a change in the voting system. There’s no question that the Libdem preference – Single Tansferable Vote (STV) – would be more proportional in effect, and I wouldn’t be surprised if many of our MPs demurr during the vote on the basis that the reforms don’t go far enough. But there are other grounds for criticism of the AV system, beyond the “it goes too far” or “it doesn’t go far enough” cries that you’ll be hearing for a the next few weeks.
As part of my research, I’m working on something called Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem. I won’t go into too much detail here, but Kenneth Arrow basically came up with mathematical expressions of democratic norms, and then asserted that within the boundaries of these requirements there could be no voting system between three alternatives that could guarantee stable and non-arbitrary outcomes.
Well, since Labour’s announcement I’ve been doing some thinking about this, and worked up a couple of examples, and I think I’m ready to assert that the AV system is not capable of increasing Democratic meaninfulness even as we know it has only limited ability to improve the proportionality of electoral outcomes.
I’ll leave it there for now, and put up part two, with all my more academic objections, very soon.
Hi Simon, your article is interesting.
Am I correct in assuming that you hope that the LibDems and Labour form a coalition government following a close general election? (it seems to be a common understanding) You assume of-course that LibDem and Labour voters would rather do business with eachother than with the Tories (to paraprase your observation, if you don’t mind). I’m not sure on the factual grounding for this belief (an “academic requirement” shall we say), but it may or may not be correct – give me some statistics to make me believe. And would non-LibDem or non-Labour voters (including non-voters per se) see things the same way?
You seem undecided as to which system you favour – Alternative Vote System as opposed to the Single Transferable Vote (STV) or First Past the Post (FPP). What then is your position on Proportional Rpresentation (PR)? AV hardly equates to PR – it is a preferential vote system but not a proportional system – though it could be transposed into a PR system with some tinkering – though such a system would be burdomsome and probably expensive, due to its parallel voting methods required – not to mention being possibly too complicated to win popular public approval or understanding.
As a political scientist myself, I can honestly confess that I have not heard of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem. Can you post a bit more about this – it sounds delightful and a must see! Kenneth Arrow does ring a bell but right now where from eludes me.
I won’t say “best wishes” or anything similar, as I support a different party. I do hope that you post more, and keep readers abreast of your ideas, feeelings an opinions. They interest me anyway.
Blister
Thanks for your comment, Blister. I intend to go into much more detail about Arrow and others in this realm in my second post. It’s quite common for academics in the UK to raise their eyebrows at the mention of this particular branch of political science as it’s pretty much contained to the USA.
My assumption that the average liberal democrat voter will be predominately likely to prefer labour to the tories etc. is based on the book “Third Force Politics” which carries a detailed profile of libdem voters. It is also based in part on information I’ve derived from looking at the 2001 and 2005 British Electoral Surveys.
I personally would not claim a strong preference for coalition with either of the other main parties in the event of a hung parliament – there are pros and cons in each case. Similarly, while I have an overally preference for STV, I am more interested in discussing the merits of the various systems as objectively as possible.
so. i just read your article.
and
i really liked it.
i never ever read an article from a political scientist before, and i only ever did an AS level in GOV/POl but, i really enjoy it.
so. there isnt too much reason for me posting this, but i wanted to encourage you and to say that you should write more.
i support libdems too.. well, mainly when it suits me… im a little undecided on which party i vote for at the minute..
but
i wanted to encourage you! i will definately read more!
Thanks Judy! I’m just getting started on this voting stuff – planning on posting more soon.
An interesting article. I am a proponent of AV. I’ve come this position reluctantly. I would be interested to see your further work on why you think AV reduces (or doesn’t increase) democratic meaningfulness. I can see how AV may not increase proportionality by a great deal more than FPTP. But that isn’t the same as democratic meaningfulness.
The context in which I have arrived at a pro-AV view is that FPTP clearly disenfranchises lots of voters. But the main issue for me is that in this age of sophisticated geodemographic targeting, the parties focus on a few issues and a small group of people in marginals. It also results in poor accountability with MPs in thrall to party machines rather than constituents. I think that most people are prepared to accept that in elections, sometimes their guy loses. What could be putting people off politics is the fact that the system ensures their voice can never count unless they are a certain demographic in a certain constituency.
AV will not achieve complete proportionality. But I do not see this as a necessary aim. I honestly believe that most people are happy entering into a competition to elect a government with a mandate, and the facility to implement a programme. They are not trying to elect a well-proportioned pie. The issues are that as things stand, only a few people have a meaningful say in that competition, and only a handful of seats are up for grabs. Others are fiefdoms.
The political history of this country has evolved the constituency MP. We should not abandon this idea but seek to strengthen it and restore the effectiveness of parliament against governments. We also need to restore confidence in politics. That’s why I am not in favour of complex systems like the one suggested by another poster on here. AV is not ideal, but for simplicity, and to ensure more meaningful representation, it is the best of the lot.