Why I Like AV

[danieldwilliam]

I should preface my remarks by saying that I am a local campaigner for the Yes campaign.

I like the Alternative Vote system. I would probably prefer the Single Transferable Vote or Alternative Vote with Additional Member top up (with open lists rather than closed) but what I’m being offered is AV or First Past the Post.

I both observe and feel the tribalism. I used to a very tribal member of the Labour Party and, after drifting towards the Liberal Democrats, I now feel much more tribally Labour than I have done in 5 years. That’s how I feel. It’s different from how I think, or I think it is.

One of the interesting things for me about working on the AV campaign is meeting lots of different people from different political persuasions. I think I am a more rounded citizen and politician because of it.

My current image of British politics is an arch. Two large, heavy buttresses pushing against each other with great power and energy in order to keep the status quo static. You pick one side or the other and heave away for the rest of your life and you don’t speak to, let alone trust, anyone not on your side. Whilst some changes have happened and the voting share of the Labour and Conservative Parties has fallen over the last 50 years I think that’s how many people in parties feel. They create structures and systems that suit the way they feel and it’s difficult to change the way people think and feel about how they do the business of politics.

Everything becomes very tightly structured around the Party. Your status within the Party is judged on your loyalty to the Party, not to the voters, even voters who actually voted for you personally.

As a thought experiment on tribalism, imagine if you were a very politically aware and active citizen sitting somewhere between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats and explicitly said to each candidate “I’ll campaign for you if you convince me that you are the best candidate and the one most aligned with my own views but my support next time round will be contingent on your voting and activism record. I will campaign for your opponent if you fail my interview ”. Imagine how that conversation would go.

So I like AV because it begins to do something about the tribalism of politics by increasing voter power.

I think it increases voter power by

·         Creating more marginal seats

·         Reduces the risks of vote splitting

·         Increases personal accountability

·         Allows implicit primaries or splinter candidates

·         Reducing the number of wasted votes (ie votes not cast for the eventual winner or runner up)

I also think AV gives smaller parties more influence. They may not gain any more seats but their voters will have to be courted for 2^nd and 3^rd preferences.

AV also creates the potential for larger parties to split. I think the Conservative party are particularly susceptible to this, given the breadth of their views and the existence of UKIP. I think the model of the Liberal / Country / National alliance in Australia is one to look at.

Generally I see AV as lowering the barriers to entry for parties and the barriers to shifting your support as a voter. If a new party enters an election under First Past the Post in order to poll any significant vote is must firstly persuade me to vote for it and then persuade me that everyone else will vote for it too. That is a hard hill to climb.

Anything that creates more competition tends to move power from suppliers (parties) to consumers (voters).

What I would hope from AV is that

·         Whips have reduced power as MP’s keep one eye on both voters and rogue challenges from their own constituency party

·         More independent or independently minded MP’s

·         More accurate polling for smaller parties leading to a better appreciation of voters’ desires

·         More influence for smaller parties (arguably more in line with their national polling)

Those MP’s and party managers who are able to enter into a dialogue with other parties and non-aligned activists best will begin to prosper and the culture of our political parties and political debate will begin to change.

I think it will take several election cycles under the new system for voters, candidates and party managers to get used to the new system and we may get some strange occurrences for a while.

Comments

Re: Learning to Love Tories

[matgb]

Assuming the Tories split, and the Cameron/Whiggish wing takes in the right of the Lib Dems (verylikely, and my preferred response, for the reasons you say).

That leaves the LD left. The Greens like to think they're Liberal/Left, and many of their policies, activists and members actually are.

I'd also hope that, with AV, the Cooperative will split off from Labour. This I feel is also possible, though less likely immediately--hopefully something to be encouraged by 2020.

Ergo, IF we get AV, and the current parties begin to split (likely), then I see three potential lib/left parties.

I actually do view the LDs, generally, as being a liberal left party--Clegg is on the left, just, and Laws is, in economic terms, a centrist. The most right wing LDs are Jeremy Brown and the Lib Vision bunch, and they'r enothing compared to headbanging Tories.

That there are some on the left who're genuinely attacking this Govt as the most right wing in living memory shows how little people really know about, say, Thatcher, and how nasty she genuinely was at times, and also that the rhetoric is getting silly in some cases.

The Govt is centrist with a right wing bias. That it is centrist is because that's where Cameron wants it to be, and the left wing counterbalance of the LDs helps him keep the headbangers in check.

Re: Learning to Love Tories

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I certainly think it likely that the Conservative Party will change post AV. I think it likely that some elements will drift off to UKIP if UKIP shows signs of winning some seats. Who they are and what they do I'm sure of as I think UKIP are still evolving beyond an allergic reaction to the EU and health and safety.

You might also see some of the left (of the Conservative Party) / liberals join the LD's rather than other way round if AV and time help the LD's electorally.

I think a lot will depend on the personalities involved for good or ill.

I take Andrews point - there doesn't seem to be a left / liberal party that puts forward the view point that things are better if they are shared, we have a binding obligation to look after the weak, merit should be supported for everyone's common benefit BUT we'll let you the people get on and do it and tell us what you need instead of the Brownite "We're from the Government, we're here to measure you" approach that the Labour Party have taken in recent decades.

At least I don't see one that is credibly, unambiguously self-identifying as one.

In terms of the parties that we end up with in say 2020 there are a couple of what I call trump issues that imply the existance of party that supports a Yes and one that supports a No on certain issues.

I'd put forward some examples as

Is the envinroment the most important thing by a long way (Yes = Green, No = most other parties)
Should we leave the EU (Yes = UKIP, NO = Conversative Party)
Should Scotland be a leftward leaning Independent state (Yes = SNP, No = Labour & Scottish LD's)