Through the Eurovision Looking Glass: Would AV make a difference?

The international Eurovision Song Contest final took place this weekend in Dusseldorf, Germany and whilst for fans (125million were expected to tune in) it was a triumphant display of unity and talent bringing together divergent cultures through the medium of music. For others the contest will have passed by virtually unnoticed.



Azerbaijan's 'Running Scared', performed by Ell and Nicki, chalked up two hundred and twenty-one points to claim victory in the contest.

Let us look at the current system used. The forty-three participating countries each get to score the twenty five entries that have successfully made it through to the final. During the performance, viewers (known as "Televoters") in all participating countries can vote by making a telephone call for their favorite song or songs.  In order of preference the televoters choices are awarded twelve points to the most popular entry, ten points to the second most popular, then eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two and one points.

Professional juries in all participant countries vote as well. Just like the televoters, each jury in each country then gave twelve points to the most popular entry, ten points to the second most popular, then eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two and one points.

The televoting results and the jury results are then merged per country with each result counting for half the final preference listing and a spokesperson in country reads out the merged results, giving twelve points to the most popular entry, ten points to the second most popular, then eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two and one points.

West Lindsey Votes 'No' to Alternative Voting

Voters from around the West Lindsey district said ‘no’ in the referendum on the voting system used for elections to the United Kingdom Parliament.

Voters were asked on Thursday, 5th May to answer the following question:

"At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the 'alternative vote' system be used instead?"

Nationally, around sixty-eight per cent of voters were against changing to AV.

The results for West Lindsey are as follows:

• Yes:  8,233 (26%)
• No: 22,882 (73%)

Spoilt Papers: 150

Ballot turnout: 31,255 (48.7%)

Karl McCartney MP: Vote No to AV

This Thursday on May the 5th, the first referendum in the United Kingdom for over 35 years will be held – on Parliamentary voting reform. This referendum was the primary concession by my Party, the Conservatives, to the Liberal Democrats in return for their support for a Coalition Government last May, and will ask “Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the ‘alternative vote’ system instead of the current ‘first past the post’ system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?”

As the Member of Parliament for Lincoln I would like to let you know my thoughts on this proposal. I believe, as many Members in both the Conservative and Labour Party do, that the Alternative Vote (AV) system would be wrong for Britain. It is obscure, unfair and expensive. It’s introduction would mean that people who came third in elections could end up winning. It would make our politics less accountable, and it would be a backward step for our Country.

A Glimps of An Alternative Future

The violent protests witnessed on Millbank this week were a stark - and deplorable - illustration of the anger that's sparked when politicians go back on their promises.

Even supporters of the Alternative Vote (AV), such as Professor Vernon Bogdanor, recognise that AV would increase the likelihood of coalition government and therefore coalition agreements - party-political bargains made behind closed doors and never put to a public vote.

The Liberal Democrats made the pledge not to raise tuition fees a centrepiece of their general election campaign, but rapidly ditched it when drawing up their power-sharing agreement with the Conservatives a few weeks later. Broken promises like this will become even more common if Britain switches to a voting system which delivers regular hung parliaments.

Everyone share in the frustration with politicians that casually renege on their promises but the Alternative Vote would not do anything to stop this: indeed, it will only make the problem worse.

Those campaigning for a 'No' vote, like this blog, believe that politics should be transparent and political parties held to account on their manifestos. We share the bemusement of Labour MP Tom Harris that Nick Clegg was so keen to push for a referendum on what he had described as a 'miserable little compromise'. That's why you should say keep your power to decide who you're governed by - vote NO to AV!

Edward Leigh Attacks AV Referendum

Local Conservative parliamentarian, Edward Leigh MP, Conservative (Gainsborough), has launched an attack on the proposed referendum on Alternative Voting and denounced the system as 'unsatisfactory, un-British, and causing frustration and anger'.

Mr. Leigh, former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said it was insulting to the electorate to force this 'confusing' system on them.  Writing in the Parliamentary House Magazine, Mr. Leigh said the particular type of Alternative Vote (AV) to be proposed in the referendum was in use only in Papua New Guinea.

"This system is rare for the good reasons that it is complex, eccentric, does not reduce the chances of hung parliaments and leaves the minority parties completely unrepresented.

"In short it is neither fairer nor more proportional than the system we already have.

"Don't let us wallow in a quagmire of half-measures: it is unsatisfactory, un-British and causes frustration and anger."

He pointed out that this 'AV compromise' was not in the election manifestos of either of the coalition parties and he objected to the plan to hold the referendum on the same day as the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh elections, a manoeuvre which, he said, would concern voters in England.

"A referendum should be held when conditions are consistent across the nation. I understand that a coincidence of dates will save us nearly £8 million, but let's not sell our political principles for the price of a nice house in Chelsea".

NO2AV Welcome Electoral Commission Report

In the wake of the release of the Electoral Commission’s report to Parliament on the wording of the question for next year’s referendum, NO2AV – The Fight for Fair Votes – is pleased to see that several of its proposals are used in the Electoral Commission’s final recommendations.

The top lines from the Electoral Commission report include:

1. They agree that the question has to be re-written, as requested by NO2AV
2. They endorse the NO2AV argument that the word "adopt" should not be used in the question; a term such as ‘replace’ should be used instead
3. They are going to provide an explanatory leaflet to voters, as requested by NO2AV
4. Although several groups submitted responses to the Electoral Commission around the question, the Yes Campaign did not, raising concerns of bias in the question as it is currently drafted

Matthew Elliott, Campaign Director of NO2AV – The Fight for Fair Votes, said:

"We welcome this report by the Electoral Commission which echoes the concerns we expressed to the Commission over the wording of the question. It is vital that the British public understand the important decision they have to make, and we hope that Parliament and the Cabinet Office take note of the Electoral Commission’s findings when drafting the eventual question."

Edward Leigh Attacks Alternative Voting Reform as 'Extraordinarily Dangerous'

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat (Sheffield Hallam), has defended the government's plans to hold a referendum on changing the Westminster voting system against claims that its proposed timing is 'extraordinarily dangerous'.

At question time on Tuesday, 27th July 2010, Mr. Clegg said holding the ballot on whether Members of Parliament should be elected by the alternative vote method on the same day as next May's elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, as well as local authorities in England, would boost turnout and save money.

Above: Edward Leigh MP quizzing
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

But Conservative, former minister, Edward Leigh MP, Conservative (Gainsborough), asked the deputy prime minister:

"Notwithstanding the fact that my new and best Right Hon. Friend would, I am sure, now deprecate the fact that if we had had the alternative vote in 1997 the Conservative party would have been reduced to a pathetic rump of 65 MPs, does he not think that precisely because AV is not proportional, it raises complicated questions? It is extraordinarily dangerous, therefore, to have the referendum on the same day as other elections, namely the Scottish elections. We need a proper debate on the issue."

Mr. Leigh is one of forty-four Conservatives backing a motion, tabled by Conservative backbencher Bernard Jenkin, which urges the coalition government to rethink its plans, warning that they contradict advice issued by the Electoral Commission.

But Mr. Clegg replied:

"About 84% of voters in England will be voting in any event next May. In Scotland and Wales everybody will be entitled to vote.

"About 39 million people will be anyway invited to vote next May and it seems to me, instead of asking people to constantly go back to polling booths to cast separate votes, it is perfectly right to say on a very simple issue, yes or no, to invite them to do so at, by the way, lower cost to the Exchequer - it saves around £17m - on the same day as other elections."

In response to criticism from Labour backbencher Jim McGovern about the failure of the government to consult the Scottish Parliament about the timing of the vote, Mr Clegg told MPs:

"I think it is disrespectful to the voters and people of Scotland to suggest that somehow they are incapable of making two decisions at once."

Referendum on Electoral Reform Bad Idea with a General Election

I am very surprised that proponents of electoral reform are supporting the idea of a referendum on election day.

Campaigners pressing for a vote on electoral reform have welcomed news from Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw MP that:

"it would be a missed opportunity not to have a referendum on Election Day."

In an interview with the New Statesman the Mr. Bradshaw broke with the government’s stated policy of pushing talk of a referendum into the next parliament. Mr. Bradshaw said:

"if we’re serious about the voters as grown-ups, then let them decide, and I think they’d be perfectly capable of making a decision."

The Vote for a Change campaign and the Electoral Reform Society, two organisations that have been leading calls for a change in how Britain elects parliamentarians have said

"there’s all to play for."

Tessa Jowell MP was among a number of cabinet ministers who earlier in the week mounted a last-ditch effort to include a referendum on electoral reform in the Queen's speech next Wednesday. It is understood that she saw the reform as part of a wider package including directly elected mayors, votes at 16 and primaries for the election of parliamentary candidates.

Mrs. Jowell, the Cabinet Office minister, urged her colleagues

"to recognise that the prize to be won is as the progressive party. The challenge is which party is going to be brave enough and foresighted enough to say we are going to go with these issues.

"If we show that boldness, Labour will be seen as the change maker. It takes brave politics to give power away, and helps people feel more powerful."

However, it will not be an easy referendum to win at the best of times. There isn’t a large majority in favour of Alternative Votes as a poll from YouGov this week indicates that 39% thought we should keep the traditional First-Past-The-Post system whilst 22% favoured Alternative Voting a further 22% favoured another form or Proportioal Representation and 18% said Don't Know (YouGov figures here). With the suggested timing it would be extremely vulnerable to a narrative that it is Labour gerrymandering (c. 1812, American English, from Elbridge Gerry and [sala]mander. Gerry, governor of Massachusetts, was lampooned when his party redistricted the state in a blatant bid to preserve an Anti-federalist majority. One Essex County district resembled a salamander, and a newspaper editor dubbed it Gerrymander) the system before they lose office.

Furthermore, it will get tangled up with the election campaign itself – the referendum will influence the election, but the election will influence the referendum too, and the election is by far the bigger game. A 'Yes' vote will be associated with a moribund and unpopular Labour government, a 'No' vote with an energised and resurgent Conservative party. Further it would be very difficult for the 'Yes' campaign to win the referendum if was held on election day, probably killing the issue for at least a generation.

The image questions in the poll show why it is a attractive idea to the Labour party, but I am surprised the Electoral Reform Society (a group I have had some affinity with in the past - good receptions at party conference) are pushing for a referendum under what would probably be very disadvantageous circumstances for the 'Yes' vote. The alternative, if rumours are to be believed is what John Denham MP is suggesting: Passing legislation now for a referendum on Proportional Representation in a year. The 'Yes' campaign would probably stand a much better chance of winning it then, but the Electoral Reform Society would face the the risk that David Cameron would win power and cancel the referendum - politically damaging, but maybe a price he is willing to pay to keep First-Past-The-Post.