The campaign both for and against changing the electoral system has hardly caught fire so far. With less than two months before the referendum on the alternative vote (AV) on May 5, the issue has not exactly captured the public imagination.
It is important, though, that the question gets a more thorough airing because it would be wrong to change a long-standing electoral system on a tiny turnout, even if the mooted change were desirable. In this instance, the danger is the greater because AV addresses none of the defects of the electoral system.
The central argument against change was set out with great authority by 26 distinguished historians in a letter to The Times yesterday. The historians point out that the fight for the democratic suffrage has always been predicated on the principle of one person, one vote.
Previous reforms, in 1832, 1867, 1884 and 1918, substantially widened the franchise as, progressively, all men and women were granted the ballot. Property qualifications and special privileges in university seats were abolished in pursuit of a noble objective — that every vote should count the same irrespective of the wealth, race, gender or creed of the citizen.
The history lesson matters because the central weakness of the case for AV is that second, third and perhaps even lower preferences are granted equal weight with first preferences. As the historians say, “we face the unfair idea that one citizen’s vote might be worth six times that of another”. These are the votes that Churchill derided as “the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates”. It is still better that every citizen should cast an equal vote.