Say 'No' to AV — Adrian Bailey

By Adrian Bailey MP

April 26 2011

I’m voting no for the same reason as millions of others. It adds nothing of value to the electoral system we have and potentially complicates and confuses our existing system.

For all its defects, first past the post is easily understood and more often than not delivers a clear political mandate for a governing party to implement and be judged on.

It is not an issue I have found any interest or enthusiasm for on the doorstep. To date I have had about six emails out of an electorate of 65,000 in my constituency. The referendum is all about the political horse trading between the Tories and the Lib Dems designed to sustain the coalition. It is not a response to the will of the electorate. The issue is a minor distraction from the big issues facing electors of jobs, policing and their other public services.

I was open minded about changing our voting system, until I saw PR implemented in the European and devolved elections. Claims it would enhance participation and restore enthusiasm for the democratic process have proved completely unfounded. Turn out for the elections are even lower than under first past the post. The outcome has been a wider range of political parties representing minority viewpoints. Changing the voting system does not, as supporters of AV would have us believe, automatically lead to greater political participation.

No doubt supporters of AV will point out that what is being proposed is not PR in its purest form. True, but those advocating it in this referendum largely see it as a step to a more fully proportional system. They justify their support for it by claiming that it will lead to a more proportionate balance in the House of Commons.

Unlike ‘pure PR’, AV does maintain the essential link between an area and its political representative. However, it also provides a system which could well lead to the election of the representative of the least unpopular party in a constituency rather than the most popular.

In certain situations with a multiplicity of candidates on the ballot paper it could lead to third or even fourth placed candidates ultimately winning. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the candidate or the policies of the party represented.

Among the most ludicrous of arguments I have heard posed to justify AV is that it would make MPs work harder and make them more accountable to their constituencies. It is based upon the premise that there will be fewer ‘safe’ seats and that members in those safe seats are almost by definition less hard working than those in marginals.

Leaving aside the slur on many hardworking MPs this seems to be based on a perception of MPs’ constituency involvement that disappeared years ago. In these days of instant communication and transparency no MP will survive long without demonstrating constituency commitment. MPs have to be sensitive to their constituent’s views, but also recognise there may be wider considerations.

This argument disregards the balance needed between Parliamentary and constituency commitments. MPs are elected to represent their constituents, but they are also elected to use their experience and judgement to scrutinise the Government. Inevitably MPs have to balance these duties. Hours spent in the Chamber questioning Ministers or in select committees examining the impact of legislation on the public are every bit as valuable as responding to constituency complaints or protest meetings.

Sometimes that means taking a stance that will be unpopular with a particular interest group within your constituency. AV could lead to MPs, in seeking to sustain their personal popularity, becoming little more than a mouthpiece for those that shout loudest in their constituency.

If that is democracy then it is a narrow populist brand that is unlikely to serve good government well. Oddly arguments about democratic accountability from the Lib Dems contrast with their support for the reduction of the number of Parliamentary constituencies.

MPs cannot be as accountable to larger constituencies, often cutting across natural communities, as they are currently. I believe that electors when casting their votes do so on the basis of long standing loyalties or a gut instinct about which Party and its policies best suit themselves. Alternative voting introduces a new set of tactical considerations which undermines the value based traditions of our system. It is unwanted and, perversely, could undermine good government.

• Adrian Bailey is Labour/Co-op MP for West Bromwich West.

Category: Politics