Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice made a musical about the wife of the President of Argentina; the clashes between police and the National Union of Mineworkers have been turned into a song and dance routine; there has been an opera about Richard Nixon’s foreign policy and a play about Neil Kinnock’s 1992 election campaign. But this much is certain. However many years go past and however desperate writers become for material, no one will ever base a work of art on the referendum for the alternative vote.
If the AV referendum were a person, it would be Lembit Öpik, desperate for attention that is somehow never forthcoming, disguising self-interest with beguiling talk of the contribution that it can make to humanity. Between the claims made for the alternative vote and the prosaic reality, a chasm yawns. But the chasm is not the only thing that is yawning. So are the voters.
Actually, it may be a mistake to use the term voters, when what is really meant is the electorate. For most members of the electorate are not intending to vote in the referendum, and have not even reached the point of yawning. They are instead blissfully unaware of the approaching referendum on the voting system and, if asked, can only guess at the meaning of the alternative vote.
And this is very dangerous. Britons could wake up on May 6 to discover that the country has a new voting system, one selected by the small number of enthusiasts promoting the scheme. It will be too late for others — noticing only at the next election, the change that has been wrought — to protest that they had not appreciated what was going on because they did not regard the whole thing as interesting enough to leave the house and cast a ballot.
There is a pattern to opinion on AV. When the idea of changing the voting system is first canvassed, the listener finds it attractive. Like this newspaper, most people regard the political system as requiring change, being dissatisfied with the quality of legislators and legislative scrutiny. And then, as AV is explained, the listener, again like this newspaper, becomes progressively less impressed. The deeper the explanation, the more likely the person receiving it is to vote “no”.
Advertisement
AV is a complicated electoral system that grants supporters of minor parties the chance to cast a second, third and even fourth vote if their original candidate is unsuccessful. Quite apart from the question of whether this is fair, it is also likely to increase the impact and influence of extremists. Its impact on the contest for the Labour leadership was highly regrettable, aiding the victory of a candidate who was the second choice both of MPs and party members.
Such deficiencies, serious though they are, might be overlooked if AV addressed any of the problems with the political system that commonly worry voters. But it does not. It would not make safe seats more contestable, would not (assuming that to be desirable) guarantee greater proportionality and would not improve the quality of Parliament (the issue that should be of primary concern, but which AV entirely fails to remedy).
The way that voters begin with mild approval and only slowly become more opposed to AV is the biggest advantage possessed by the “yes” campaign. Its hope for victory rests on its own supporters being the only ones with the energy and spirit to contest the campaign and turn out to vote. The “no” campaign has before it the difficult, but vital, task of ensuring that people summon up the will to vote against a proposal, when a large part of the case against it is that it is irrelevant to them.
The AV referendum does not offer an improvement in politics, whichever way the vote goes. But a “no” vote has the inestimable advantage that it prevents things getting worse.