AV - a surprising choice

I long agonised over the merits of voting yes or no in the referendum to decide whether we move to new voting system. I surprised myself by coming out with a firm 'yes'. But it was easy to get confused by the arguments rather than clearly thinking through the pros and cons.

I have heard 'no' campaigners suggest we should oppose AV because people are too stupid to understand it. I have heard 'yes' campaigners argue that we should back AV because it will make MPs less corrupt and claim fewer expenses. Neither arguement is persuasive nor are they based on anything other than rather offensive assumptions about the quality of the electorate and the overwhelming majority of decent, hard-working MPs of whatever party.

I have heard one attractive reason: if David Cameron is against AV, then all progressive and rational democrats should be in favour. It is a reason reinforced by Cameron's Conservatives attitude to representation in general. What other party would advocate the removal of 100 MPs from Parliament as a cost-saving measure and appoint 117 new members of the House of Lords at a cost of £18 million? We are right to distrust any Tory stance on democratic representation. But distrusting Cameron is not in itself a reason to vote 'yes' in the referendum.

There have been fine calculations about which party would benefit from a change in the voting system but this is unpredictable and, in my view, likely to be marginal. And it was this judgement that firstly steered me to the 'no' camp. If a new system did not change the outcome, then why invest energy in changing the system? What persuaded me was my reflections on what changes might occur to British political culture.

Firstly, there is a culture of cynicism against Governments of whatever hue. Scepticism - wanting to be convinced and continuously questioning - is healthy in a democracy. Cynicism - the belief that MPs are all wrong all the time and nothing will convince you otherwise - is bad for democracy. It engenders the belief that nothing can change. And it is a belief that is reinforced by the current electoral system which (usually) sees a party in  Government which is not not supported by 60 to 70% of the people.

In the first-past-the-post system, many MPs are elected with just a minority of the votes. We thus have Government by the largest minority. AV would not necessarily change who was in Government, but it gives people a choice: if the their preferred party is not elected, who would be their next choice? It would, therefore, give the public a greater stake in that Government because it would be elected by more than 50% of the electorate.

Secondly, parties would no longer need to focus solely on that very narrow band of the electorate, the so-called swing-voters. How many progressive policies have been ditched, how many thorny issues swept under the carpet in order not to antagonise the small group of voters whose votes determine who is largest minority? Under AV, parties could be (paradoxically) truer to their principles.

They would still need to appeal to a broader electorate but based not on changing their principles to attract swing voters, but on a clear set of principles shared by a wider society. Instead of promoting division, the need to attract second preference votes would encourage parties to emphasise their similarities.

The first-past-the-post system tends to fragment the progressive vote. AV would allow it to come together to combat the forces of reaction. That is why the Conservatives oppose it. That is why decent, rational progressives should support it.