The Daily Zeitgeist

The debate in the UK  around the upcoming referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV) – or “preferential voting” as it is called in Australia – has focussed up until now on the differences between the current first-past-the-post system and the proposed new AV system, and what it could mean for various parties and the voting public. The Australian system of voting is being scrutinised more and more here in the UK to see how it works and the various outcomes in different situations.

At a recent Liberal Democrat get-together, I was discussing with other party members about the direction our “Yes” campaign will take when the referendum finally arrives.  An interesting discussion ensued about a major criticism of the AV system here is that, in forcing voters to make a second, third and possibly fourth or more preferences, it is inherently unfair to the voter if they do not want to do that.

What if they only want to vote for one candidate, and no one else?  Why should they be forced to do so? Is that not undemocratic?

I think it is.

It’s also politically very dangerous if you are supporting a “YES” vote for a new system of voting in a country that does not really understand AV in the first place.

Under the system as it applies currently to Federal elections in Australia (but interesting, not all state elections) voters MUST express a preference on the ballot paper for it to be a valid vote. What this means is that if, for example, there are 5 candidates, then the numbers 1,2,3,4,5 must all be shown in a box on the ballot paper.  Miss one out and the vote is not counted. At all.  Not even if you just put “1″ for the candidate you want, then leave the rest blank.

The “optional preferential” system (I’ll call it “OP” for short) is subtly different because the voter is not forced to express a preference if they choose not to. I have long been a proponent of  the OP system.

Adopting the OP system in the UK for Westminster elections would immediately neutralise the criticisms of AV by those who wish to retain first-past-the post.  Why?  Simply because, under the OP system, just voting “1″ and not expressing a preference is EXACTLY the same as just putting an “X” on the ballot paper for one candidate, as currently happens under first-past-the-post.  But it also gives those who choose to the option of expressing further preferences if they so wish.  This would allow, for example, a voter to vote “1″ for a minor party (such as the Greens) without having to worry about “tactical voting” or their vote being wasted.  They can easily express a second or further preference for candidates as they see fit.

How can anyone argue that is unfair or undemocratic?  Such a proposal would help isolate the die-hard proponents of first-past-the-post and paint THEM as “undemocratic” rather than the other way around.

A real world example of the possible effects of an OP system can be found in the is Australian Federal election, being held tomorrow.

With just about 24 hours to go until the polls open in Australia, the Labor party (ALP) has seen it’s “primary vote” (that is, the number of first-preference votes it gets) has collapsed to just 35% if the most recent poll is to be believed (Source: The Australian newspaper).

But it still may win. Odd, to a UK voter, perhaps.  But here’s how.

Now, many of my friends and family in Australia are disillusioned with the ALP but are not in any way inclined to vote for the Liberal-National coalition (Conservatives). The Green primary vote (remember: this means the number of “1″‘s they get) is quite high at 14% but this is not likely to be enough to win a lower house seat (the Senate is another matter but that is chosen by a full proportional representation system of single-transferable vote based on state boundaries).

What this effectively means for the ALP is that they know they can rely on Green “second preferences” in most if not all of the contested constituencies, as research has shown that the preference flow is in the order of about 75% to the ALP from the Greens. It also means that the ALP does NOT have to court the kind of voters who may vote Green, because they know full well that their preferences will ultimately flow to them anyway because a Green voter is highly unlikely to give their second preference to the Conservatives.

I think this has made the ALP lazy and complacent about socially progressive issues because they know that the “socially progressive” voters who may vote Green will ultimately see their preference flow back to them anyway because they are the “least worst” alternative.

This has led to an ever-narrowing difference between the ALP and the Coalition. The most notable example at the current election is that of gay marriage rights.  Both the ALP and the Coalition have ruled out allowing same-sex couples to marry, but it is a major policy of the Greens whose leader (and Senator), Bob Brown, was the first openly gay member parliament in Australia.

But what if there was an OP system for Federal elections?  What if the ALP could NOT rely on Green preferences to get elected?

Two things would happen: in a closely fought seat with a good Green turnout, the Coalition would probably win if a large number of Greens did not express a second preference. In a tight race like the current election is, this would probably mean that the Coalition would win the election overall.

Secondly, faced with the possibility of losing, or not getting, Green preferences, the ALP would be forced to take account of some of the issues that are of concern to Green voters – the same-sex marriage policy, for example – to court more first preference votes to outweigh those who may not express a second preference, or to stop voters voting Green at all.

Whatever the reason, it effectively forces a major party to take account of broader views. (Incidentally, poll after poll in Australia shows an overwhelming majority of voters in favour of allowing gay marriage rights – so the ALP’s consistent refusal to endorse it is nothing short of puzzling).

The fact that voters are forced to make a preference decision when voting (coupled with the fact that voting is compulsory anyway) effectively allows parties like the ALP to coast to victory on the preferences of the Greens, taking all those voters for granted and effectively disenfranchising them in the process.  The UK has had its far share of political scandal in the last few years on expenses, party funding and now election spending – so that is NOT an argument we want used against us in the UK when the AV referendum comes around.

Now that sounds like an argument for the OP system to me!