Originally published March 22 2011

A referendum on the 5th of May will pose this question to the British public: should we adopt the alternative vote to replace our current first-past-the-post electoral system?

There are many who sincerely believe that there need to be reforms made to our political system and I have a great deal of sympathy with them; indeed, when it was first announced that we would be having a referendum on electoral reform (the first UK-wide referendum since 1975), I assumed, as someone who considered themselves on the progressive end of the spectrum, I would be backing the change. The more I read about what we were being offered, however, the more I felt that this would be a step back. The fact that when asked people generally say they are in favour of the change– that is, until the system is explained to them – speaks volumes. The idea that anyone who opposes AV is in some way a reactionary force denying democracy is simply false.

For a start, AV is less fair even than first-past-the-post. Projections of what the results would have looked like in the landslides of the 1980s and 1990s suggest that the Conservatives would have had an even greater majority under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, and Labour would have had an even greater landslide in 1997 and 2001, second preference votes pushing them even further. I do not believe that landslides are healthy at the best of times; a strong opposition is vital to prevent extreme decisions without wider consent.

It would also provide less, not more, representation for small groups. The closer you are to 50%, the more likely your election and survival. The further you are from 50%, the more likely you will fall to second preferences. The consequence of this is twofold. Firstly, it does not affect safe seats as they already have either over 50% or close enough to make no difference to the final result as they already have the support of the majority of their constituents. The seats which will change are swing seats (the very seats where an incumbent MP has to work hardest to keep constituents’ support) where MPs are the easiest to get rid of in favour of someone else. To replace them with safe second preference seats seems counter-intuitive. Secondly, it harms smaller parties for that reason, that seats where they are represented are rarely close to 50%, and they have to really fight to hold them. We would very likely lose the sole Green MP, Caroline Lucas, as well as SNP and Plaid Cymru representatives.

At present we have a two-and-others system, and I believe it is important for the latter’s voices to be heard; under AV we would have a solidly three party system, with only the Liberal Democrats likely to benefit as they gain seats as a soft alternative to the Conservatives or Labour. Do we want our MPs to be the lowest common denominator candidate who is the least unpopular? Likewise, who has legitimacy if one party gets more first preference votes but the other gets more votes with second preferences? First-past-the-post delivers one winner, one vote. AV does not, as it gives additional weight to extremists and second-choice candidates.

There are many worthy ways of reforming our political system, including the power to recall corrupt or unpopular MPs, open primaries so that even in safe seats you can get rid of an MP, House of Lords reform, and more. AV, though, is a step back. Supporters say this is a step forward for reform. It isn’t. Vote No.