Britain votes tomorrow on change to its voting system, just two days after the news today from Canada demonstrated, as graphically as anything could, why change is necessary. But the insularity and intellectual poverty of the referendum debate is such that the lesson is unlikely to be heeded.
Stephen Harper, Canada’s Conservative prime minister in a minority government for the past two terms, finally won a majority in Monday’s general election — 167 seats out of 308. But it came courtesy of the electoral system, not the voters.
Harper’s Tories won with only 39.6% of the votes. Against them, the three centre-left parties of New Democrats (30.6%, 102 seats), Liberals (18.9%, 34 seats) and Greens (3.9%, one seat) had a clear majority between them. As I said last time Canada voted, two and a half years ago, the voters wanted “a centre-left government. But they’re not going to get one.”
That’s first-past-the-post voting for you — the same system used in Britain. Thursday’s referendum would replace it with an optional preferential system like that used in New South Wales and Queensland (in Britain it’s called the “alternative vote”, or AV). All the indications are that it’s going to go down, and even if it should happen to get up it won’t make a lot of difference to British politics. But it would be some sort of protection against an outcome like Canada’s.
For make no mistake, this result is an absolute travesty. The most obvious parallel is 2005 in Britain, when Labour under Tony Blair won a clear majority with less than 36% of the vote. But then at least Blair could could claim that the majority of the electorate was anti-Tory. This time, Canada has ended up with a government that on anyone’s story is dead against the will of the electorate.
If democracy means anything, it means that things such as this shouldn’t happen.
Preferential voting is no panacea; it can produce strange results too, as in South Australia last year when Labor held office despite being clearly outvoted on a two-party-preferred basis. But it would offer safeguards against a Canada-style result; an exchange of preferences between Liberals and New Democrats might not have given them a majority, but it would at least have produced a hung parliament, like the last one.
If the “Yes to AV” campaign in Britain was on the job they would be deluging the country pointing out this obvious injustice. But there’s no sign of that happening, and so few people understand the basics of electoral systems that it is very hard to make the case for change. You have to start by explaining things that most voters are reluctant to admit they don’t know in the first place, and ignorance provides fertile ground for a scare campaign against change.
Australia has had stable government for 80 years with preferential voting, but (despite the valiant efforts of Antony Green “Australia” is still being used as a bogey word by the “No” campaign. There’s equally little chance of Canada’s experience being given its due weight.
Harper now has the mandate that he wanted. But his adventurism in government may be tempered by the knowledge that should his opponents combine — even to the extend of an agreement to avoid three- or four-cornered contests in critical seats — his party would be in deep trouble.
The lesson is all the more obvious because that’s exactly where the Conservatives come from. In the 1990s, the Liberals scored decisive victories because their opposition was divided between the Reform Party, strong in Canada’s west, and the Progressive Conservatives, strong in the Atlantic provinces. The union of the two to form the Conservative Party was the essential precondition to Harper’s success.
Failing a change to a more democratic electoral system — unlikely even in Britain, and not on the agenda in Canada — the centre-left will have to learn to co-operate if its electoral support is to translate into a parliamentary majority.
A lot can happen in 3 months.
3 months is a long time in 2020. Join us to make sense of it all.
Get you first 12 weeks of Crikey for just $12. Cancel anytime.
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
Leave a comment
I think the AV referendum was doomed once Clegg was caught out fibbing about students’ fees. As a figurehead for the Yes case, he’s now as popular as dogshit on ones runners.
Never the less, it sounds like the “Yes” case was hopeless at promoting their cause. If they had used humor and humility in countering common counterarguments – “it’s too complicated”, for example – they wouldn’t lose so badly. I like this pic from a B3TA image challenge.
I would imagine if this is correct,ie the majority almost disenfranchised, particularly in a system of voluntary voting , that it would lead to more and more voters failing to vote, a feeling of what’s the use prevailing ?
Not a good look for democracy!
Three in five eligible Canadian electors didn’t vote for Harper’s government – didn’t get to designate “second/third etc” preferences :- “voted against it”?
And they won “a majority, in their own Right”?
@ Down and Out of Sài Gòn
Cartoon tells it all, doesn’t it – excellent
Ahem, Charles, remember what I predicted last time you discussed this? Polls this morning put the NoAV vote at 68%. Other than the usual complacency, ignorance and conservatism, the anti-Clegg factor is huge. Reading the blogs they are seething with hatred and frustration, especially the Guardian, a hotbed of ….moderation, ie. Lib-Dem-dom. So they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
As dumb as this might be, in the end the situation was and is hopeless. All parties agree that after this the issue will not be revisited for another 20 years. There is one person to blame for this and it is Nick Clegg. It is correctly pointed out that it was the best he could get out of the Tories. But that is the best reason I have heard as to why he should have gone into coalition with Labor. Instead David Cameron cannot believe his luck, and now he is starting to rub salt into those self-inflicted wounds. With some predicting council losses up to 1200 for the LibDems one wonders if Clegg can survive, and thus if this unlikely coalition can survive.
OK, so what do we care? Only that with Canada and the UK, USA and ourselves, the anglo world seems stuck with deeply unsatisfactory politics locked in by deeply inadequate electoral systems. And nothing looks like changing.