PR should be offered in referendum says ippr


by Newswire    
3:11 pm - July 5th 2010

Tweet       Share on Tumblr

As plans for a proposed referendum on the Alternative Vote vs the current First-Past-the-Post system for the UK Parliament at Westminster are announced, independent think-tank ippr calls for the government to be bolder and offer the electorate the chance to opt for a fair, proportional voting system.

Electoral reform is a significant missed opportunity of the New Labour era and ippr welcomes the referendum announcement as recognition of the need for change to the electoral system.

However ippr does not believe AV is the right option for the UK.

ippr calls instead for the referendum to offer a choice between the existing First-Past-the-Post system and the Additional Member System (AMS).

Ippr recently published a report on electoral reform in which it argues that Alternative Vote is not the answer because:
- it is not a proportional system;
- it can actually distort things to a greater extent than the existing system;
- it does not address the many problems of the current system.

The report instead argues that AMS is the best option for elections to the UK Parliament because it combines a treasured part of the current system – the constituency link – with genuine proportionality.

Co-director of ippr Lisa Harker said:

The outcome of the election showed that the current voting system is past its sell-by-date. First-past-the-Post is unfair and distorts the electoral outcome – and this time it didn’t even deliver its proudest boast: a clear majority for one party.

We warmly welcome the decision of the new coalition government to hold a referendum on electoral reform, but if the people are only offered the chance to reject one unfair system and replace it with another it will be tragic missed opportunity. In the era of new politics, the electorate must be offered the chance to opt for real change.

To date AMS has not been discussed as part of the current debate, even though it is used successfully for elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the London Assembly.

From a press release

   Tweet   Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author

· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Lee Griffin

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/02/alternative-vote-referendum-electoral-reform

Simple really.

2. Nathaniel

Of course, if PR were to be offered as an option on the referendum, the referendum itself would have to be held under an AV type system. Otherwise PR and AV would take votes away from each other and we’d be left with first past the post.

Even with only AV on the referendum this could still happen. You say Ippr claim that “[AV] does not address the many problems of the current system”, but that’s preposterous. Yes, it doesn’t solve them all, but it clearly solves a lot of them. AV might not be perfect but it’s our best chance right now to fix a gaping hole in our country. To deny it now in the vain and ideological hope that we might get something better any time soon would be a grave, grave mistake.

3. soru

- it is not a proportional system;

This is good – proportionality is pretty much an unexamined assumption, something people claim to be a good thing without ever explaining why. Put into practise, it is usually bypassed by making decisions non-democratically; when it isn’t, it’s a disaster.

- it can actually distort things to a greater extent than the existing system;

That presumably depends on some definition of ‘distort’ that assumes the desired outcome. No explanation is given for why that desired outcome is functionally better.

- it does not address the many problems of the current system.

The only really significant problem of the current system is the existence of safe, low-turnout seats, which distort turnout figures and lower legitimacy. The only safe seat under AV is where one party has safely more than 50% of first-preference votes (i.e. > 60%). That’s not going to be many.

And if a party is that popular, a voting system that doesn’t result in it winning definitely has something wrong with it…

4. Stephen Gray

@3

You don’t think that it’s a signficant problem that smaller parties can get lots of votes but not get a single voice in Parliament?

Whatever you think of UKIP, any system in which they get nearly a million votes but don’t get a single Parliamentary seat is broken.

AV won’t solve that particular problem, and STV is unlikely to either (The Electoral Reform Society’s projections actually leave the minor parties with no seats had the last election been STV – compared to the one that the Greens got). Some form of AMS (and AV+ is technically a form of AMS) is the only way to fix this problem with the system without abandoning the constituency link.

5. Phil Hunt

@2: Of course, if PR were to be offered as an option on the referendum, the referendum itself would have to be held under an AV type system.

Not necessarily. I would ask two separate questions:

1. should parliamentary constituencies by elected by FPTP, or by AV?

2. as well as constituencies, should there also be top-up seats to ensure proportionality, as in the Scottish, Welsh and London assemblies?

Four outcomes would then be possible: FPTP, AV, FPTP+ (aka AMS), and AV+.

6. Phil Hunt

@4: Whatever you think of UKIP, any system in which they get nearly a million votes but don’t get a single Parliamentary seat is broken. AV won’t solve that particular problem, and STV is unlikely to either.

UKIP and the Greens both do better in systems where a vote for them isn’t wasted — such as the 2009 Euro election. Under either AV or STV, both of these parties would get more votes then they currently do for Westminster elections, and would be likely to get a few MPs elected (though less than their proportion of the vote).

7. cim

Phil Hunt/5: Now that set of questions I could definitely support. Do you know of anyone campaigning for it?

8. Phil Hunt

@7 cim,

No, and realistically AV is going to be the only question put in 2011.

Supporters of PR should support this, and they should at the 2015 give their top preferences to all the parties that support PR above the parties that don’t. At the 2009 Euro election, 40% of voters voted for parties that weren’t even represented at Westminster, and all these voters would be better off under PR because the party they support would do better.

So if all Lib Dems, Greens, Pirates, UKIP supporters etc vote for each others parties with their lower preferences, we’ll gat a lot of MPs supporting PR in the next parliament.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    PR should be offered in referendum says think-tank http://bit.ly/95EX0r

  2. sunny hundal

    ippr think-tank comes out against AV vote reform. Says we need PR in referendum http://bit.ly/95EX0r

  3. House Of Twits

    RT @sunny_hundal ippr think-tank comes out against AV vote reform. Says we need PR in referendum http://bit.ly/95EX0r

  4. paulstpancras

    RT @sunny_hundal: ippr think-tank comes out against AV vote reform. Says we need PR in referendum http://bit.ly/95EX0r

  5. Vote No To AV Tweets

    Institute For Public Policy Research comes out against the AV referendum and in favour of AMS http://bit.ly/95EX0r

  6. Dan Shapland

    RT @VoteNoToAV: Institute For Public Policy Research comes out against the AV referendum and in favour of AMS http://bit.ly/95EX0r

  7. Peter Lord

    RT @VoteNoToAV: Institute For Public Policy Research comes out against the AV referendum and in favour of AMS http://bit.ly/95EX0r

  8. B Latif

    No to #AV, Yes to #PR, says #ippr.
    RT @libcon: PR should be offered in #referendum says think-tank http://bit.ly/95EX0r

  9. amol rajan

    RT @sunny_hundal: ippr think-tank comes out against AV vote reform. Says we need PR in referendum http://bit.ly/95EX0r

  10. James Macintyre

    RT @sunny_hundal: ippr think-tank comes out against AV vote reform. Says we need PR in referendum http://bit.ly/95EX0r

  11. Ash Chapman

    RT @libcon: PR should be offered in referendum says think-tank http://bit.ly/95EX0r

  12. Mark Wallace

    Encouraging that IPPR have come out against AV (http://bit.ly/95EX0r) PR purists voting no or abstaining will sink it.

  13. House Of Twits

    RT @wallaceme Encouraging that IPPR have come out against AV (http://bit.ly/95EX0r) PR purists voting no or abstaining will sink it.

  14. Nadia

    Not a total waste of space then. RT @sunny_hundal: ippr think-tank comes out against AV; we need PR in referendum http://bit.ly/95EX0r.

  15. the London Link

    PR should be offered in referendum says ippr: As plans for a proposed referendum on the Alternative Vote vs … http://tinyurl.com/3xheqs4

  16. PolicyResearchCentre

    RT @sunny_hundal: ippr think-tank comes out against AV vote reform. Says we need PR in referendum http://bit.ly/95EX0r

  17. Kaveh Azarhoosh

    RT @libcon PR should be offered in referendum says think-tank http://bit.ly/agp59O <<< yet again IPPR gets it.





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.