Good stuff. It’s inspiring to see a grassroots democracy movement well-placed to make a difference. We must keep building towards the referendum and beyond until we get a proper grown up voting system.

I have never wanted anything other than FPTP. However, I really do appreciate a coalition government as I see able politicians from both parties work together and make great compromises for the sake of the country. This is the strongest factor in getting people to consider a different voting system. Another factor is the official opposition’s poor response to the fiscal situation the country is in. They are unable to acknowledge any mistakes even so far as the high structural deficit. They are not offering any cooperation or solutions. Long may it continue as more people like me will realise that tribal politics is no longer right for the world we live in.

Hi Andy,

Thanks for this article.

One challenge for the campaign / referendum is about what attitude it has towards the coalition.

If the argument is “single party governments are bad, we need to change the voting system to encourage more coalition governments”, with Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander fronting the campaign, then people who don’t much like this coalition government aren’t going to vote for it (and nor are people who support the government, because most of them are Tories).

In contrast, “vote for this to wipe the smirk off David Cameron’s face” is much more compelling argument and likely to get a majority in a 2011 or 2012 low turnout referendum.

Where’s the money coming from to fund the Yes campaign? Hiring Crosby indicates not only how serious the No campaign is but how much money they have. That in itself should be a wake up call for all Yes campaigners out there.

Although I guess the anti-PR Tories will not use it, the anti-PR Labour will: PR will make coalitions more likely and does the public want another coalition government in the future? I think the answer to that is No.

The fact is that the Liberals [*] have not stayed the hand of the axe wielding Tories. Far from it. In the public’s eye, this is a Conservative government, the LibDems have had no influence at all over it. (Clegg’s claim that raising the income tax threshold was his influence is pathetic. Cameron said several times during the election campaign that he would want to do that, but he had other priorities.) The Liberals have not managed to prevent the poorest paying for the deficit reduction. They have not brought in “fairness”, since Osborne has brought in nasty policies like forcing young mothers to go back to work when their youngest child is at a vulnerable age.

So the public will have no stomach for an electoral reform that will make coalitions more likely. If Clegg really does want to change that situation he needs to be less co-operative with his coalition partners and far, far more critical. And he has to be seen doing it. That will not happen, so any vote on PR will fail.

[*] Interesting that this is the term that Labour politicians prefer to use. Is it an attempt to persuade the Social Democrats that they really have no place in the Liberal Party?

If the argument is “single party governments are bad, we need to change the voting system to encourage more coalition governments”, with Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander fronting the campaign, then people who don’t much like this coalition government aren’t going to vote for it (and nor are people who support the government, because most of them are Tories).

In contrast, “vote for this to wipe the smirk off David Cameron’s face” is much more compelling argument and likely to get a majority in a 2011 or 2012 low turnout referendum.

I thought the argument was that millions are effectively disenfranchised in an FPTP voting system and it seems better to have a fairer representation of our views [1], not about people’s feelings about facial expressions.

[1] Which coincidentally may lead to more coalition governments.

Well, it’s got my support. Shame that only counts for one 65millionth of the country.

“I thought the argument was that millions are effectively disenfranchised in an FPTP voting system and it seems better to have a fairer representation of our views”

Does changing the system to AV really help with that?

I don’t think many people will go out to vote in a referendum next year which aims to change the voting system to make coalition governments more likely, and the argument “coalition governments = fairer” aren’t very likely to chime with the experience of e.g. someone who has just lost their job.

Whereas “vote for this to annoy the Tories and their rich mates” might get enough people to go and vote for it on principle in Scotland, Wales and northern England to counteract all the people in Surrey queueing up to voting against because the Daily Mail and Telegraph says that it is an attempt to rig the voting system, raise taxes and integrate us into Europe.

I have to say that I think AV is a fine alternative to our present system. It is less proportional (look to Australia for an example of why). But it gives people more choice and so will hopefully boost turnouts, which is something I consider vital.

However, I don’t expect us yes types to win the referendum.

I fear it may prove embarrassing for the Lib Dems, insipid for Labour, and triumphant for the Tories.

Labour – For Labour’s core constituent, there will be no enthusiasm for weak electoral reform in return for massively regressive budgets that put the burden of austerity on the poor alongside cuts to nurses and teachers wages. Using the vote to bash the Tories won’t work either, as those same voters won’t want to reward the Lib Dems for deciding such budgets and pay cuts were a price worth paying.

Lib Dems – Lib Dem supporters don’t actually want AV. Everyone knows that. They just have to champion it as it is their reward for coalition government. It will thus appear farcical to the point of agony for those of us who want electoral reform.

Tories – Easy to rally their support to win the coalition negotiations once and for all by denying the lib dems the biggest “red line” demand their activists stood for during those negotiations.

So – big win for the Tories – embarrassment for the Lib Dems – Labour uninspired, and it will be nice and late in the day (four years in) so that the coalition can collapse and the Tories can ride their success into a new election.

In case it isn’t clear – I’m not in optimistic mood today.

Sorry

Permanent ConDem coalition?

I’m beginning to like the sound of PR after all!!!

Good point Leon – we might need to do some digging into who is funding all this.

#10

Another reason Labour is turning against reform.

Oh god my pessimism is getting worse today…

“we might need to do some digging into who is funding all this.”

Talking of which (and this is meant non-fascetiously), anyone know where the unions stand on this?

Actually I think you’re wrong. Even from a tactical point of view, now is the time to push for true voting reform and, again for tactical reasons, it should be STV.

Someone once suggested that PR should stand for People’s Revenge. What was very clear in the run up to the election was that the dissatisfaction with the voting system and its impact on how the country is run. This dissatisfaction was not just wide (there’s always been a vague benevolence to PR) but deep. Your organisation is after all one of the results of that.

A lot of political classes will still be affected by that and susceptible to pressure from constituent lobbying. You also underestimate the potential support, not only from the minor Parties but also from the Lib Dems. They can still support AV and this as well.

Labour politicians are particularly vulnerable to being accused of being out of touch – look how the leadership was shamed into putting Diane Abbott on the leadership ballot.

What is more I think some people are underestimating support for the idea of coalitions. If you look at today’s YouGov poll:

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-budget-results-230610.pdf

only 28% of Tory voters think for example that the economy would be run better if their own party had an overall majority.

Arguing for systems that makes a Party the Government on a small plurality of the votes, makes you look like a power-mad control freak in the public’s eyes.

So I think fighting for STV as an alternative now will be popular. But it’s also the right thing to do tactically. Those who might sit the campaign out because they think AV not worth the effort will get involved. Even if an STV option doesn’t get on the ballot paper, the seeds will be sown for future campaigning. And of course campaigning for STV implies AV as a fall-back position.

Most important of all tactically it would establish AV as the “middle option” – in the public’s mind if not on the ballot paper. The supporters of FPTP will not be able to set up a simple dichotomy and voters will choose it as the moderate option.

I think there’s not only the moral case to fight for what you believe in here; there’s also a practical one.

Don,

I don’t think many people will go out to vote in a referendum next year which aims to change the voting system to make coalition governments more likely, …

No – the aim is to make governments more representative.

I think people like to over-complicate the politics of an AV argument.

Do you want your representative to be someone with less than majority support in your constituency?

Wouldn’t you prefer that if your vote went to someone that ended up coming 3rd (or worse) that your vote still counted and could either go to the leading candidate to give them legitimacy, or to the runner up that you’d rather won if you had the choice?

Is it good enough that by simply voting for the person you want to have the job, you could be letting in the person you LEAST want to have the job, and isn’t it time you helped stop it?

It’s simple, and it’s why I disagree that Lib Dem supporters wouldn’t support it if the choice was AV or FPTP.

The argument best for a slogan is this;

AV makes it easier to kick out somebody you hate, as the opposition vote isn’t split.

Hi Lee, ukliberty,

I think those are quite complicated arguments to make (if you don’t believe me, try them out on non-politically engaged colleagues at work / friends / family members).

The “no” side of the argument is going to say that voting yes in the referendum will mean higher taxes and rigging the voting system so that the Liberal Democrats are always in power, and they will have 10 million newspapers a day to repeat this message.

Team Yes needs something to convince people who aren’t that interested in electoral reform to go out and vote.

@ Leon and Sunny – the initial money for Take Back Parliament has come from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust and it is hoped they will be making a further grant to fund its activities in the run up to the referendum. Individuals are also being asked to make donations, but funds are really limited and we could do with all the help we can get. A few months before the referendum both the Yes and the No campaign will receive money (several million I think) from the state to fund their campaigns but most of the crucial work will have to take place before then.

You’re right it would worthwhile doing some digging around the No campaign and how it is funded. Shady millionaires and vested interests will no doubt be playing a big part.

I think those are quite complicated arguments to make (if you don’t believe me, try them out on non-politically engaged colleagues at work / friends / family members).

In Sherwood (a Conservative gain), the share of the vote was,
Conservative 39.2%
Labour 38.8%
Liberal Democrat 14.9%

Try Chesterfield (a Labour gain):
Labour 39%
Liberal Democrat 37.8%
Conservative 15.7%

Over half the voters in those constituencies did not vote for the candidate who is now supposed to represent them in Parliament.

That’s not complicated.

Of course a solution might be.

My instinct is that once you get into too much detail about the merits of the different systems you have already lost. People will tend to vote against things they don’t understand and the No campaign will be trying to make AV out to be as complicated and confusing as possible. The Yes campaign will instead have to draw on deep feelings of anti-politics and the desire for change that are still very much current (from Iraq, expenses etc etc) and be part of a much broader narrative of “changing our politics”. It will need to take the insurgent, anti-establishment ground before the No campaign does if wants to stand any chance as the No campaign will attempt to frame this as a politicians fix compared to the blunt tried and tested system of first past the post. I disagree with those saying this referendum can’t be won. Much will depend on the timing for sure (the sooner, the better) but when 8 out of 10 people say they want to change the way they select their MPs it’s ours to be lost.

Guy Aitchison & Don Paskini

You’re right that the last thing we want to do is start trying to explain every last technical detail of voting systems to everyone. What we need is a narrative that tells people why they need change. That’s why I quite like selling PR as the People’s Revenge.

The trouble is that AV basically doesn’t change much; it’s a compromise between doing something and doing nothing. We really need to get the energy behind something more substantial. That way even if that fails, the momentum will carry AV through Parliament and not let it be used to shut the door to further reform.

I also think a referendum is winnable if we can frame the issue as taking power away from the political machines. If the only national UK referendum (1975 on retaining EEC membership) is any guide, what we really need is FPTP to be defended by a mixture of hard right and hard left. Well there’s enough of both about.

As soon as there’s a ‘Yes to AV’ campaign sign me up. I’m a supporter of STV, but ANYTHING is better than FPTP.

Surely the main reason for electoral reform is to make every vote count. In the sense that elections have become dominated by the parties fighting over the 100,000 (or whatever small number it is) swing voters that decide the election under the current system.

This has resulted in a narrowing of the debate into squabbling over which little-Englander benefit-bashing foreigner-bashing outflanking-the-others-on-the-right policy to adopt next.

If every vote counts for more, then the debate must widen, which must be a good thing for democracy.

This debate begs the question about how any elected government represents its electorate. It seems fairly pointless to me while politicians (perhaps I should say governments) become increasingly isolated from the people they claim to represent.

All electoral systems are unfair in some way. I’ve listened to mathematicians and reforming wonks and, though perhaps a touch confused, I am now sure of that much. AV is a small improvement of FPTP but its still pretty poor. Good luck with your campaign but unless politics starts talking about things that people really care about and feel empowered I doubt it will come to much.

@ Yurrzem – The entire issue of unresponsive Governments is tied up with electoral reform. FPTP is the reason that politicians don’t talk about things people care about. Politicians become isolated because they don’t need votes – because of safe seats.

“Good luck with your campaign but unless politics starts talking about things that people really care about and feel empowered I doubt it will come to much.”

You have it in the wrong order. If our campaign comes to much, politics will start talking about things that people really care about.

If you want responsive politicians, if you want frontline political talk, and if you want politicians who listen, then support our campaign. Yes, AV is not as good as a proportional system. But to campaign against AV would be to kill reform totally.

Surely the ‘yes’ campaign won’t be short of money. I’m just looking at the Electoral Reform Society’s accounts & they have very significant net assets. If they’re no going to spend a good chunk of it on the referendum, what else are they going to do with it?

Of course, a campaign needs more than money, but money is important…