The Shotgun Blog
« Tim Hudak: his priorities and policy | Main | Harper & Palin »
Thursday, October 01, 2009
UK Democratic Reform: Alternative Voting System
There is talk in the United Kingdom of electoral reform. The Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated his support for am "Alternative Voting System." This is a brief description of the proposal according to Reuters:
Under this system, voters will be asked to mark their preferred candidate, their second choice and so on. If a candidate receives a majority of first place votes, he or she would be elected just as under the present system.
However, if no single candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, the second choices for the candidate at the bottom are redistributed. The process is repeated until one candidate gets an absolute majority. The alternative vote is not actually a proportional system, but a majoritarian system.
This is the most sensible electoral reform proposal for a Westminster style legislature. It does not completely overhaul the current system, with any possible disastrous results. Instead it tweaks the current system, to the possible advantage of the system as a whole.
The first advantage is that it more accurately reflects to choices of an electoral district. To make a Canadian example: if 60% of a riding hates the Liberals passionately, it is possible that the Liberals might win with 40% of the vote. Under this system it will allow Liberal haters to put Conservative or NDP first or second. This would ensure that the riding is not represented by a party that the majority despise.
The second advantage is that it could make it easier for smaller parties to be successful. One of the great hurdles of a small party is the "wasted vote" mentality. If someone is sympathetic to the Libertarian Party but wants to ensure a Conservative Party victory, they could vote Libertarian (1) and Conservative (2).
A third advantage is that it could create a more cordial Parliament. If the Conservative Party discover that a significant number of NDP voters are putting them second, it would give them an incentive not to be vicious to the NDP. They could still criticize their policies, but they would have to be careful not to annoy NDP voters.
Mr. Brown is proposing a referendum on this reform if he wins the next election. I would be interested in seeing the results of that plebiscite.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on October 1, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
This is a bad system. British Columbia tried it 50 years ago. The result was that the So-Creds, who were the number 1 choice of few people, won the election because the electorate were polarized on the other main options. In federal politics in Canada today it is much more likely that people who put a "1" for the Conservative or for the NDP would then put a "2" for the Liberal, meaning Liberal governments are much more likely. But that would not necessarily be a real reflection of what people wanted.
The best system is the BC-STV system that was proposed a few years ago. Like the STV system the UK is talking about, it does ask voters to make 1, 2, 3, etc. choices. But unlike that system, it makes it much more likely that the make-up of the HoC will be a reflection of voters party preferences the way proportional representation does.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-10-01 1:49:05 PM
I forgot to mention that, of course, in the UK a similar dynamic of parties exists, so the Labour Party is much more likely to be the second choice of Conservative and Lib-Dem voters. Thus this "reform" would make Labour governments more likely. That's the real reason Brown supports the idea.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-10-01 1:58:50 PM
Interesting that this sort of proposal should surface just as Brown's party faces being wiped out in the polls next year. Of course, Brown has a history of blaming other peoples or things for his misfortunes...
STV is a bad idea because it produces minority governments. This would be workable under the American system, where there is no such thing as a confidence vote (just the dreaded filibuster), but in a Westminsterian parliament, it's a recipe for government paralysis. Just look at Ottawa today for a taste.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-01 2:38:43 PM
"Mr. Brown is proposing a referendum on this reform if he wins the next election. I would be interested in seeing the results of that plebiscite."
Hugh made a funny!
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2009-10-01 3:00:28 PM
Even if the concept is good, the physical process of holding an election would be unworkable. Most voters would only vote once, and the second ballot would most likely be stacked with also-ran supporters. Elections would take days to complete, especially if recounts were requested in any of the ballots.
Posted by: dp | 2009-10-01 4:16:49 PM
Heh, I hate to agree with Fact Check here, but the problem with any sort of runoff voting is that sometimes a Stephane Dion gets elected ;)
Posted by: K Stricker | 2009-10-01 4:47:20 PM
There is talk in the United Kingdom of electoral reform.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on October 1, 2009
There has been talk of electoral reform for the last 50 years almost always by the party in power that is about to get turfed out. Mandy's fingerprints are all over this as he attempts to deflect the news that NuLabour are headed for oblivion. Thank goodness Brown will be heading back to Kirkcaldy to teach high school next April.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-10-01 7:48:36 PM
Does this system differ substantially from the way Stelmach got elected to the leadership of the Alberta PCs?
Fact Check, thanks for the pointer to the BC system as potentially a way to avoid such triumphs of mediocrity. I'll look into that.
Posted by: Timothy | 2009-10-01 9:08:14 PM
The problem with democratic reform is it usually means more dumbocracy;
And why would we want or care to have "a more cordial parliament"? So they could get more done? Cuz the dears are so stressed by the nastiness of things now?
Who cares?
Posted by: John Collison | 2009-10-01 10:25:38 PM
So we're all in agreement: John Collision is not the man to call if you want to get something done.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-10-02 9:13:08 AM
Who cares how the UK would elect its provincial leaders? After Lisbon/constitution, Westminster will be empowered to do even less than currently.
Posted by: Frank Ch. EIgler | 2009-10-04 6:28:43 AM
AV was also used in rural ridings in Alberta and Manitoba for 30+ years. In those provinces the majority of people did treat it like an SMP election, ranking only one candidate. Another option would be to do like Australia does, and make ranking all candidates compulsory. In BC and Alberta's cases, despite superficial appeals to the principle of "majority representation" the system was introduced to keep another party down (as Fact Check suggests Brown is trying to do), which shouldn't really be the goal of electoral reform to my idealist mind. Those 40% of voters who like the Liberal candidate in the example shouldn't be denied representation.
While AV might encourage minority party supporters to head to the polls, and their second preference votes could thus be influential, the odds of returning a third party are low, excepting the case of BC and the Socreds in 1952 (though in that case they were serving as a replacement in the public's mind to the disastrous Liberal and Conservative coalition, and were in fact the second party in a two party race with the CCF). AV could cause major parties to court the minority parties' supporters with policy concessions in their platforms, but this could also occur in government given a PR system that would create minority and coalition governments as a matter of course. By further obscuring actual minority representation, majoritarian electoral reforms such as AV can hardly be categorized as reforms at all.
Posted by: Stephen Harrison | 2009-10-09 6:10:58 PM
Post a comment