Why replace one "unfair" electoral system with another equally "unfair" electoral system?

***

The supporters of changing Britain’s system of electing Members of Parliament have long used the phrase “fair votes” to describe the motivation for their campaign. Put simply they argue that the first past the post system gives an unbalanced result and that the value of each individual vote is not equal as voters in “marginal” constituencies have a chance to alter the Government whereas opposition voters in “safe” constituencies do not.

Taking this fairness argument as the basis for the campaign to change the system – and I can see no other honourable reason for making such as change – it seems to me that replacing the current unfair system with a system that is merely differently unfair destroys the argument. So why do the labour Party – and some Liberal Democrats - support the “Alternative Vote” (AV) system which manifestly gives a greater weight to some votes over other votes?

Under the first past the post system the voters in marginal seats (and supporters of the leading party in safe seats) carry greater than average weight. Under the AV system voting advantage goes to a different set of voters – the supporters of minority parties in seats where the leading party receives less than 50% of the votes. Under such circumstances only the second choices of these minority party supporters are considered. The second choices of the leading two parties – and in many cases leading three parties – are discounted (are wasted votes). Clearly this is “unfair” since those voters are disenfranchised from exercising their second choice.

At the same time, the votes of minority voters in seats where the leading party receives greater than 50% carry precisely the same disadvantage as is the case in the current system. Just as is the case for first past the post, these votes are “wasted” since they have no more impact on the overall outcome of the election.

To appreciate the manifest unfairness of AV (on the basis of the initial argument of equalising unfair votes), just look at Yorkshire and Humberside. Here in 2005, 24 of the 54 seats were won with more than 50% (22 Labour, 1 LD and 1 Conservative) with a further 16 where the number of votes for minority parties exceeded the gap between the leading party and 50%. In not one single seat would the second preferences of Conservative voters have been taken into account and in just one seat (Sheffield Hallam) would this have been the case for Labour. It is clear that an AV system would have secured further seats for Labour (in Shipley, for example) but would not have resulted in any further gains for the Conservatives.

However we look at the system, there is no way in which AV is fairer or is more likely to produce a better distribution. Depending on the nature of minority parties it could, in fact, produce a greater distortion of the “preferred” result indicated by the popular vote. So I can only assume that the reason for proposing the system is for it to either be: 1) to the direct electoral advantage of the Labour party; or 2) to the direct electoral disadvantage of the Conservative Party.

...