This public statement from Minister of State for the Justice Ministry - Michael Wills, reported in the Guardian and Observer [23rd and 24th March respectively], stands out.

"Wills said the decision [about voting reform] would not be based on whether Labour would benefit. “It should not be about parties choosing a system that will most advantage themselves, it’s about a voting system that delivers democracy for all of us,"

This comment refers to an apparent favourable government reaction toward the Supplementary Vote [SV] system; a limited variant of the Alternative Vote.

It is mere coincidence that such a system would specifically favour Labour due to the vast majority of LibDem voters indicating a Labour candidate as their second choice and Labour voters reciprocating for LibDem candidates.

Effectively, adoption of the SV system will consolidate anti-Conservative sentiment within a large number of individual constituencies, which will be crucial in those of a marginal nature.

The Minister is therefore being disingenuous in his remarks.

The Supplementary Vote is not proportional and can in fact deliver even more disproportionate overall outcomes than FPTP, which is some achievement!

These proposed changes will create a two fold benefit for Labour; conveniently papering over the cracks in the democratic façade and delaying [for another parliamentary term?] the introduction of real reform, i.e. proportionality into Westminster elections, whilst simultaneously blocking Mr. Cameron's electoral dreams.

This is not necessarily good news. A majority system (the article confuses alternative vote (AV) and supplementary vote (SV), so it's hard to know which is being considered) is simply NOT proportional; indeed, it could potentially be less proportional than the current single-member plurality (SMP) system - we just do not know because voting patterns are volatile. Indeed, Labour also does not really know (I'd be very curious to see the 'private research'), yet assumes that Liberal Democrat voters are more likely to support Labour candidates as second preferences.

This assumption might be wrong. Some academics who study voting behaviour are looking into what they call 'tactical unwind', and are finding that Lib Dem supporters are less hostile than before (in the 1990s) to the Conservatives. Relying on the (possibly incorrect) belief that there is some kind of 'natural' anti-Conservative majority amongst the electorate is a very high risk strategy for Labour, particularly in view of the party's recent poll ratings, unpopular and illiberal legislation, economic problems, incompetent actions, and Gordon Brown's own personal unpopularity. The London mayoral election might cast AV/SV into the 'long grass' should Conservative candidate Boris Johnson, far ahead in recent polling, defeat Labour candidate Ken Livingstone. Nick Cleggs's Lib Dems might be considerably less hostile to David Cameron's Conservatives than Labour seems to believe. A reconciliation between the Lib Dems and Conservatives, however unlikely, could keep Labour out of power for a generation or more if AV or SV is implemented - in Australia, Labor was out of power from 1949 to 1972.

Those who think that any electoral system is better than 'first-past-the-post' should think again. The notion that candidates would have more legitimacy with a 50% plus one vote threshold is questionable: the system relies upon transfers (by voters who choose to indicate further preferences) from the least popular candidates who are eliminated in order to reach that threshold. The higher threshold, by the way, makes it more difficult for parties (or independent candidates) with lower support levels to win - under SMP, a candidate could win with about 35-40%. Note that in Australia's House of Representatives (elected by AV), the Australian Democrats have never won seats (although independent candidates have), and the National Party wins largely at the discretion of the Liberal Party, of which National is something of an appendage. The Lib Dems should look very carefully at the Australian example - would they really like to become an appendage of Labour?

If there is a referendum on AV/SV, I'm not sure that Labour would win. Many voters would be suspicious of the party's strategy, and opponents (both Tories and academic experts) would make a case against the change. Looking again at the Australian experience, when there are constitutional amendment proposals that do not get all-party support, they fail in referendums because voters suspect partisan advantage is being sought.

From a perspective of partisan advantage, a proportional system would be a far safer bet for Labour, and this is probably why most democracies around the world have moved to PR during periods of party system change (not necessarily due to the democratic merits of PR, although these arguments were made in the process in many countries). For Scottish Parliament elections, PR was essentially a defensive choice made by Labour, so I am rather surprised that AV and SV are being considered for the House of Commons. Mixed-member proportional (MMP) would make a lot more sense: it could be engineered to be only moderately proportional, it allows parties to retain a great deal of control over candidate selections, and because it is a PR system, it would gain the support of many reformers (although those who are wedded to a preferential system would be disappointed). MMP is also already in use for three of the UK's elected bodies.

Dr Thomas Lundberg
Lecturer, Politics Department
University of Glasgow

Below is an e-mail I sent to the Guardian pointing out some misleading references to AV.

Incidentally I did not connect this reported eagerness on the part of minsters ‘to give voters a "second vote"’ with the Supplementary Vote as used in mayoral elections. I do hope that this is not the intention of Ministers - it seems to me an absurd system. It is even worse than the French "double tour" system. At least in the French system one can see who the two "top" candidates are - under SV one has to guess. In fact the Guardian (Patrick Wintour) seems confused about exactly what is meant by what he refers to as "the alternative voting system" rather than the Alternative Vote or AV

'Dear Guardian,

1.- "Under the alternative voting system, ballot papers would allow for a SECOND preference vote which would be redistributed from the lowest-scoring candidate's share until one candidate has more than 50% of the vote."

2. -"it tends to result in the number of seats gained being more PROPORTIONAL to the number of votes cast."

1. - The Alternative Vote (AV) is in fact the Single Transferable Vote (STV) in single-member constituencies. There is not just a SECOND preference, there are multiple preferences (1,2,3 ….) depending on the number of candidates.

2. - The word PROPORTIONAL is unfortunate. It tends to give the impression that AV is Proportional Representation.(impossible in single-member constituencies). In fact it is not - it can be more disproportional than first-past-the-post.(FPTP) . In any case I do not understand what this statement means; and I cannot believe that it reflects precisely what MVC have said. It is true that the WEIGHT of the left-of-centre as a whole will be more accurately represented. But individual parties will not be fairly represented: the Greens for example will be smothered under AV more effectively than under FPTP. Later preference votes for Greens and other smaller left-wing parties are likely to boost the Labour vote - hence the real reason why Labour politicians favour it. AV will also reduce the proportion of completely wasted votes as against the huge proportion wasted under FPTP - estimated at around 70%

Best wishes

J Patterson'