So why vote for a new system which won't be proportional?
The Alternative Vote system proposed in the upcoming Referendum would make minor adjustments to seat numbers but it doesn't provide proportionality. The Liberal Democrats would have gained a few more seats had AV been in place at the May 2010 general election. And Conservatives and Labour a few less. Yet, it isn't a proper proportional represention (PR) system. So it alters very little.
True PR opens the prospect of far smaller parties getting into parliament.
However, even if a real PR system were adopted - where parties had to pass a 5% threshold to enter parliament as in Germany - there'd be only three main parties represented in the UK if people voted like before. In fact, depending on rules adopted, such a PR system might reduce the number of parliamentary parties over and above those at Westminster today, as only the big three gained more than 5% last May.
But they might not vote as the did before, if they thought their votes counted for more.
However, even if a real PR system were adopted - where parties had to pass a 5% threshold to enter parliament as in Germany - there'd be only three main parties represented in the UK if people voted like before. In fact, depending on rules adopted, such a PR system might reduce the number of parliamentary parties over and above those at Westminster today, as only the big three gained more than 5% last May.
But they might not vote as the did before, if they thought their votes counted for more.
The experience of countries in continental Europe is that more small parties enter parliament where PR is used. It's always possible that AV would that effect too. It does in Australia, for example. Yet the AV system isn't actually proportional, and if fairer voting is desired then a proper PR system should be adopted.
But at the moment large parties are big tent, broad church organisations, attracting a wide range of views. PR encourages fragmentation. Tiny parties spring up and some attract support rapidly. And not all of these are helpful groups, as they can be far-left or far-right. They can be xenophobic, race- or religion-based. So, inward-looking chauvanistic parties can propel governments to adopt policy which is unhealthy. Sections of society can be marginalised as a result. And trouble can brew.
Cohesion is what we should be aiming for, not dislocation, surely? It's difficult enough to get people to engage, without encouraging dissassociation by employing a voting system which hands a megaphone to those stoking fear and hatred.
As we can see from Contental experience of PR, it takes weeks or even months and in Belgium almost years to form Coalitions. In the UK it took days under the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system as only two parties were negotiating. And after a Coalition is formed on the Continent, it can collapse without warning, as small parties resign in fits of rage or on points of principle.
In other words, PR tends to result in instability. It might provide proportionality, but it doesn't aid economic and social recovery or growth. Big tent parties use party whips with powers to keep MPs in line. Coalition governments rely on in-depth negotiations between disparate party leaders behind closed doors in secret.
In other words, PR tends to result in instability. It might provide proportionality, but it doesn't aid economic and social recovery or growth. Big tent parties use party whips with powers to keep MPs in line. Coalition governments rely on in-depth negotiations between disparate party leaders behind closed doors in secret.
AV doesn't provide a solution to the problem of disproportionate seat allocation. And PR encourages fringe parties to gain footholds, even disproportionate influence. And potentially, mayhem. FPTP isn't in any way ideal. But it is the most likely route to stable government. PR isn't on offer anyway in this Referendum. However, AV is.
AV will only help the LibDems in all probability. That's why they're so pro the thing. Perhaps Labour is watching its core vote seeping-away as Labour "heartlands" are replaced by ambitious suburbunites who see themselves as "Middle Class", a term now so broad as to have little meaning. Maybe that's why Labour sees a potential future for AV, although officially they've taken no stand on it.
AV will only help the LibDems in all probability. That's why they're so pro the thing. Perhaps Labour is watching its core vote seeping-away as Labour "heartlands" are replaced by ambitious suburbunites who see themselves as "Middle Class", a term now so broad as to have little meaning. Maybe that's why Labour sees a potential future for AV, although officially they've taken no stand on it.
The plethora of small parties supporting the Yes to AV campaign would likely be far more enthusiastic about the adoption of a proper PR system. But that's not on offer here.
No comments:
Post a Comment