AV would end the scourge of tactical voting by Luke Akehurst
One of the great myths about the alternative vote (AV) is that it will predominantly benefit the Lib Dems.
I’ve spent all my political life trying to expose the Lib Dems and resisting calls for tactical voting for them. As an election agent one of my proudest moments was when Hackney Labour reduced the Lib Dems from 17 seats to just 3 on our local council.
But I see no contradiction between this and my support for a Yes vote in the AV referendum next May.
The starting point when judging any electoral system is not a snapshot of the partisan benefit to your own party, but whether that system delivers for voters.
AV isn’t proportional representation, so it does not necessarily deliver an improvement on first-past-the-post (FPTP) when it comes to proportionality (that is, share of votes relating to share of seats).
But on any other count, AV would enhance democracy compared to FPTP, while maintaining a constituency link between MPs and voters:
- It would enhance voter choice, as electors get to rank candidates in order of preference rather than just picking one candidate.
- It ensures that every MP is elected with a majority of the votes cast in their seat, removing the travesty of MPs elected on small vote shares when, for instance, there is a split vote between two opposition candidates. This would enhance the mandate each MP has.
- It reduces the number of wasted votes: you can vote with your heart for your first choice party and then use your lower preference votes to vote tactically if your preferred party has no chance of winning.
It is the last point which means that AV would have a partisan advantage for Labour and against the Lib Dems.
In many seats in the south and south west of England, there has been an entrenched tactical voting tradition for decades, going back to the days of the SDP/Liberal alliance.
Having got themselves into second place (and sometimes first), the Lib Dems in many seats have sustained themselves there with a squeeze message on Labour supporters that has become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
“Labour can’t win here”, say Lib Dems in any seat where they run second to the Tories. And so Labour supporters vote Lib Dem tactically; Labour activists switch off their local campaigning; and the prophesy fulfils itself.
It is for this reason that in many seats we have no real measure of how much Labour support there is: because the tactical voting message has been run for so many years that people who, if they lived in a seat where Labour was first or second, would be solid Labour voters, habitually vote Lib Dem for tactical reasons.
It doesn’t take long for tactical voting in parliamentary contests to seep over into people’s local election preferences, eroding our local government base and causing our local party structure to atrophy.
We don’t even know who would really be the main opponent to the Tories in some of these seats if people’s real party preferences were expressed and tactical voting removed as a factor. Given the puny poll ratings of the Lib Dems and their deviation from any pretence at progressive politics, it might well be us.
Of course, the Lib Dems don’t give us any thanks for the votes Labour supporters have lent us over the years. This substantial factor in their ability to hold many of their seats was completely ignored when they chose to form a coalition with the Tories.
AV would end the travesty of tactical voting. In seats across the south, Labour supporters could vote Labour and ignore pernicious Lib Dem squeeze messages. We’d find out who was really the main opposition to the Tories in those seats and progressive voters would be able to rank the parties and transfer between them on the basis of their policies, not the effectiveness of their squeeze appeal. Labour’s national vote share would more accurately reflect our real support; and as national vote share was a factor in the Lib Dems choosing a coalition partner, it would increase the chances of a centre-left government.
That has to be good for democracy and good for Labour.
This article was first published on www.labour-uncut.co.uk.
