The Alternative Vote
| Author | Michael Pinto-Duschinsky,Iain McLean,Guy Lodge |
| Published date | 01 April 2011 |
| Date | 01 April 2011 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-9066.2011.00053.x |
| Subject Matter | Debate |
ties’ – political elites which divide the spoils
of office between them with all too little re-
gard for the voters. The continental system
is also characterised by long periods of inter-
regnum while the rival party leaders bargain
with each other for a share of power.
Supporters of the system of squalid deals
that often characterise secret coalition
negotiations dignify them as honourable
compromises and as ‘grown-up politics’.
But are they really? If party leaders are en-
titled to disregard their pledges immediately
after a hung election, where does that leave
voters? Is the system of permanent hung
parliaments what the British voter wants?
The manner in which the Liberal Demo-
crats abandoned their campaign pledges on
university fees while the ink on the coali-
tion agreement of May 2010 was not yet
dry should be a warning.
The fact that there will be a referendum in
May on the so-called ‘Alternative Vote’ (AV)
itself is the result of a continental-style deal.
It was reached between the Conservatives
and Liberal Democrats after the inconclusive
general election of May 2010. Whereas hung
parliaments have been (and, unless the elec-
toral system is altered, will continue to be)
the exception under Britain’s first-past-the-
post system, a ‘Yes’ vote in the forthcoming
referendum will mean that hung parliaments
become the norm in the future and will
make it far easier for the Liberal Democrats
to insist on their real demand – a move to
full proportional representation (PR).
PR would of course eliminate the admitted
unfairness to the Liberal Democrats under
the existing system. But the cost would be
to introduce a new and far more damaging
form of unfairness. Under PR, it would be
virtually impossible for either of the main
parties to form a government without the
agreement of Nick Clegg or his successor.
The only way of forming a government
without the Liberal Democrats would be a
‘grand coalition’ of Conservatives and La-
bour. The new system would incorporate a
The Alternative Vote
The British Constitution has served the
people of the UK well over genera-
tions. The keystone to our freedom is
an electoral system that permits voters to
throw unpopular governments out in a
general election.
The removal van that draws up at the
back of Number 10 Downing Street on
the morrow of the poll to take away the
belongings of the defeated prime minister
embodies the sovereignty of the people. The
prospect of the removal van makes govern-
ments pay attention to popular discontent.
Under the proportional representation
systems that operate in Western Europe,
unpopular governments can and do avoid
the wrath of the voters by stitching up deals
with one or more minority parties. Under
these systems, elections mean relatively
little. Inter-party dealings after the election
determine the formation of the government.
Effectively, power is shared by what Richard
Katz and Peter Mair have called ‘cartel par-
The coalition government is holding a referendum in May on whether to change the system for electing MPs
from first-past-the-post to the Alternative Vote. Michael Pinto-Duschinsky argues that the proposed changes
to the electoral system run counter to the spirit of British democracy and should be resisted.
‘tyranny of the minority’ as we have seen in
Israel, where relatively small ultra-religious
parties have been irremovable from power.
Constitutional referendums should be
held only when there is an issue of real
public salience. There was virtually no
public demand for a referendum on the
Alternative Vote. As polls by Ipsos MORI
showed, a mere 1 per cent of the popula-
tion rated constitutional reform as the main
election issue in 2010.
As far as the Alternative Vote is con-
cerned, there are several different kinds of
voting method that fall under this title, for
example in elections to the Australian lower
house a valid vote must list all candidates
by order of preference. However, the May
referendum question will not set out what
voters are being asked to vote for – it has
already been decided that under the pro-
posed AV system for the UK voters will not
be obliged to give an order of preference for
all candidates. It is also worth noting that
it is very difficult to find any other coun-
try where the system on which the British
voters will be asked to decide is currently
used for elections to a body equivalent to
the House of Commons.
The obscure and flawed Alternative Vote
system was selected for the referendum de-
spite the fact that even the Liberal Democrats
do not really want it but favour it for tacti-
cal reasons. According to the British Election
Survey, the Liberal Democrats would have
gained some two dozen seats at the expense
of the Tories had the 2010 election been held
under AV. It is for this reason that AV is likely
to make hung parliaments the norm.
Michael Pinto-Duschinsky is a director of the In-
ternational Foundation for Electoral Systems, and
a former research fellow of Merton College, Oxford,
Pembroke College, Oxford, and Brunel University.
He is the author of Send the Rascals Packing: Defects
of Proportional Representation and the Virtues of the
Westminster Model.
Press Association Images
16 Political Insight
Debate
To continue reading
Request your trial