« 2020 Vision | Main | Proportional Representation and the ‘Disappearing Voter’ »
April 19, 2007
A "useful vote"
As politicians and pundits here discuss tactical voting ahead of the May 3 polls and a future general election, next Sunday's Presidential election in France should serve as a warning against glorifying and encouraging such behaviour above proper reform of the system. Where you cannot express preferences for candidates and have only one vote, the electorate is always in a dilemma about whether to vote with their heart or with their head. And parties and candidates are forced to do contortion acts to disguise their position or give subtle signals as to who might be a better bet to vote for if you want to stop party 'x' from being elected. Wouldn't it just be better to have a system where such practices were not needed? Where all votes counted and you could vote positively rather than negatively?
Mark Mardell sadly doesn't take his discussions on 'a useful vote' to such logical conclusions, but it still is a good piece - excerpts below:
There's much talk this week of the idea of "a useful vote". With a crowded field of 12 candidates, a vote utile is one that may actually help a candidate become one of the nags in the two-horse race of the second round. To Le Pen's supporters their vote is useful: he could do it. So could Francois Bayrou, who hopes that he will be the candidate of the centre - of those who don't like Sarkozy and don't think Segolene Royal has the right stuff.
The concept of a useful vote is a sharp one. Had the votes of the left-wing candidates all gone to the Socialist last time, then Le Pen wouldn't have made it into the second round. There is a clear possibility that could happen again.
It's an acute dilemma for many who really want to vote for the cute-faced and engaging 32-year-old Trotskyist postman, Olivier Besancenot. A cartoon in the party's paper says it all. One activist is saying to another: "Besancenot is 100% left, 4% in the polls," and his comrade replies, "I prefer that to the other way round." Rolling a cigarette before she goes into the rally, Anne-Eve Renault says, "I've got to vote soon and everyone says you have to have a useful vote. For me that would be Segolene Royal. But if I voted for my ideas I would vote Revolutionary League. I really don't know what to do."
Posted by malcolmclark on April 19, 2007
Comments
Yes! I do find it remarkable that there is so little comment on the absurdity of the French system which last time gave the left-wing a choice between a fascist and a rogue. The obvious solution is the Alternative Vote so that people could vote with both their heart and their head: the first preference with their heart - the second with their head. I've spoken with French people about their system, but it's much like speaking to English people about first-past-the-post: they've never thought about it and wonder why one might think there is anything wrtong with it.
This public ignorance and apathy is depressing and our commentators are largely to blame. There are many who claim to support electoral reform in this country but apart from an occasional mention of it they remain silent. Polly Toynbee is a case in point; so is Jackie Ashley. And after the last election we thought that at last we had a champion in the Independent - but now we never hear a squeak out of them on the subject of the need to change to a PR system.
And let's face it: the only people that ever hear of MVC and ERS are the already converted subscribers and attenders at conference fringe meetings. The vast majority of the population have never even heard of them.
This was the icpr finding:
"Public understanding and attitudes to first-past-the-post - page 22 of ICPR report
3.21 Focus groups convened to test people’s reaction to different systems suggested that many citizens were unaware of any defects in first-past-the-post until they were pointed out. The attitude of surveyed respondents tended to change dramatically when they found out more about the operation of first-past the-post. Most were converted to some form of PR."
Until this public ignorance is dispelled MP's of the two major parties will continue to rely on it to maintain their (misguided) belief that they have a vested interest in resisting change.
Posted by: Joe Patterson at April 20, 2007 12:04 PM
We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.
