AV is the worst voting system of all – Telegraph Blogs

Saturday 15 March 2014 | Blog Feed | All feeds

Daniel Hannan


AV is the worst voting system of all


There are several ways to resolve this problem, above all open primaries. But I am open to the argument that a move to Irish-style multi-member constituencies might have a part to play. Certainly most Irish politicians I know are dedicated constituency workers.

What there is no case for whatever is the AV system, which Churchill sagely called “the most worthless votes for the most worthless candidates”. AV would widen the schism between Parliament and people. It is especially biased against small parties, and would make the House of Commons even less representative of the full spectrum of national opinion. And it can be less proportional than our existing system. Don’t take my word for it; listen to Roy Jenkins:

AV on its own suffers from a stark objection. It offers little prospect of a move towards greater proportionality, and in some circumstances, and those the ones which certainly prevailed at the last election and may well do so for at least the next one, it is even less proportional that FPTP. Simulations of how the last election result might have come out under AV suggest that it would have significantly increased the size of the already swollen Labour majority. A ‘best guess’ projection of the shape of the current Parliament under AV suggests on one highly reputable estimate the following outcome with the actual FPTP figures given in brackets after the projected figures: Labour 452 (419), Conservative 96 (165), Liberal Democrats 82 (46), others 29 (29). The overall Labour majority could thus have risen from 169 to 245.

In a sense, though, all this is irrelevant. Whatever the pros and cons of AV, the granite-hard objection is this: neither of the coalition parties proposed it in their manifestos. The only party that did suggest it was Labour, which was whopped.

If we are to change our voting system, it should be as a considered response to an identified problem, not as a coalition bribe. I should be happy to have a referendum offering people a choice between the Liberal Democrats’ preferred system and the current one. There is even a case for a three-option ballot paper, in which people are allowed to choose between STV, AV and first-past-the-post.

But, before we start holding referendums that none of the parties proposed, let’s hold one that they did all propose, viz one on the Lisbon Treaty. A Bill to amend Lisbon is likely to be put before both Houses later this year, as first predicted by this blogDouglas Carswell says he will move a referendum amendment, and I hope MPs of all parties support it. Ideally, they should take up the Lib Dem manifesto promise and treat a “No” vote as a vote against EU membership.


comments powered by Disqus