Local MP Jeremy Hunt has spoken out in support of the No2AV campaign. On May 5th, there will be a referendum to decide if we should change our voting system from first past the post to the Alternative Vote (AV). Jeremy has held three public meetings to debate this issue with a pro AV campaigner. Jeremy has also written a blog about why he is not supporting a change in the voting system.
Blog:
Since the General Election the political debate has understandably focused on the economy. But on May 5th we will all be voting about whether to change the voting system to the Alternative Vote, a proposal that I believe would massively reduce the accountability of members of parliament to the public who give them their jobs.
The change proposed may at first glance seem simple enough. Under the Alternative Vote - or “AV” – voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than choosing just one with a cross. Sounds harmless enough – but the implications for our electoral system of what is in fact an extremely complicated and unclear system would be profound. At the last general election, for example, Gordon Brown would still have remained Prime Minister despite 70% of the country wanting a change. Why? Because after second preferences were allocated, Labour would have remained the biggest party with the Liberal Democrats gaining around 20 seats more.
Our current system is far from perfect. But we should remember that democracy is not just about people being able to choose their leaders. It is also about being able to kick them out. Conservatives learnt this to our cost in 1997, so the current system does not give us any special advantage. But it does usually allow the electorate to make a clean decision. Under AV, hung parliaments would be more likely, meaning a government’s programme is decided not by the electorate at the ballot box but by politicians horsetrading and haggling both before and after the votes are cast.
Last year’s formation of the coalition was right and in the national interest. But there is a real risk under AV hung parliaments will become the norm and the country will end up with a government of second choices. How does that make our system more democratic?
Supporters of AV claim it would lead to a more constructive type of politics as politicians campaigned for second preference votes from other parties. But it could also mean the end of radical, bold politics with leaders unwilling to confront major challenges head on. As Churchill said in 1931 it allows the outcome “to be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates.”
Nor should we assume politicians would necessarily pander to the centre: fringe parties like the BNP would be incentivised to play a much bigger role and bargain with larger parties for endorsement in second or third rounds. Indeed AV in Queensland meant the far right One Nation Party won 3 additional seats in the state legislature.
With trust in politicians at such low depths, we are right to debate how the current system can be improved. But the lesson of the expenses scandal was surely to make politicians more accountable not less. Greater transparency by both parliament and the government means this is starting to happen - along with much needed changes such as giving constituents the ability to sack their MP mid-term.
Changing the voting system to AV makes politicians less not more accountable – a step back to the bad old days of back-room deals by a Westminster elite who forget that it is the people and not they who are the bosses.