***
Today our politicians are obsessing about democracy – or rather about the process of democracy (which for most of is politicians is far more important than what we might mean by the idea of democracy). Central to the debate today will be occult arguments by anorak-wearing political obsessives about the precise mathematics of this or that system of voting. Nuances and semantics of the meaning placed on “proportionality” or “fairness” will be paraded – MPs will feel that, for once, they are engaged in a debate that matters. They are wrong!
So rest assured dear reader I am not going to lay out before you the whys and wherefores of each voting type, to discuss their merits or meaning, to ponder the significance of Arrow’s Theorem* or even to speculate on the motivations behind Gordon’s damascene conversion to the cause of the instant re-run. Instead, I propose to argue that the method of election is a matter of monumental inconsequence next to some other concerns.
And those concerns? Firstly there is the issue of accountability. Secondly there is the matter of selection. And third there is the question of what we elect MPs to do. If our parliament debates the arcane of voting systems it does so without answering the real questions around our democracy – how we allowed MPs to get beyond the law, why those MPs (or most of them) felt empowered to indulge in an exercise of blatant exploitation and why we allow them to create a special, privileged and protected position for the political party.
None of these questions – how we hold MPs to account, how candidates are selected and what we the people want our MPs to do – are addressed by changing the system of voting. That merely creates the illusion of a substantial change without making the real changes we need. And those changes?
Direct election of the executive
Terms limits for all politicians at whatever level
The power of recall
Ending state funding for political parties
Repealing the Registration of Political Parties Act
Restricting all election campaigning to the promotion of individual candidates
Without these changes the voting system – how we choose – is of little or no relevance and will do nothing to restore public confidence in politics, let alone enthusiasm!
*Although I do think that discussing the merits or otherwise of voting systems without understanding Arrow's Theorem and its proofs is like discussing a football match without considering the offside law!
....
Showing posts with label electoral systems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label electoral systems. Show all posts
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Thursday, 4 February 2010
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.
...
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.
...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)