A Snapshot of Electoral Reform in the UK
The 2011 AV Electoral Reform Referendum
The 2011 AV (Alternative Vote) referendum was a significant moment in the history of the United Kingdom's electoral system. It marked the first UK-wide referendum since the 1975 vote on continued membership in the European Economic Community. The path to this referendum was paved by political negotiations following the 2010 general election, which resulted in a hung parliament. The Conservative Party, led by David Cameron, did not secure a majority and subsequently formed a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, led by Nick Clegg.
Electoral reform had long been a core issue for the Liberal Democrats, who believed that the existing First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system was unfair and did not accurately reflect the voters' preferences. As part of the coalition agreement, the Conservative Party conceded to holding a referendum on changing the voting system, though they themselves campaigned against it.
The Blair Administration's Analysis of Electoral Reform
The debate over electoral reform did not begin with the 2010 coalition government. During Tony Blair's tenure as Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007, the Labour Party conducted significant analyses of the UK's electoral system. The most notable of these was the Jenkins Commission, established in 1997 and led by former Labour Home Secretary Roy Jenkins.
The Jenkins Commission was tasked with examining alternative voting systems and making recommendations for a more proportional electoral process. In 1998, the commission released its report, recommending a hybrid system known as AV+ (Alternative Vote Plus). This system combined the Alternative Vote with a proportional representation element, aiming to retain the constituency link while making the overall result more proportional.
Despite the commission's thorough analysis and its potential to create a fairer electoral system, the Blair administration did not act on its recommendations. Several factors contributed to this inaction:
1. Political Calculations: Labour had secured a landslide victory under the FPTP system in 1997 and 2001. There was little incentive for the ruling party to change a system that had delivered them substantial parliamentary majorities.
2. Internal Party Divisions: The Labour Party itself was divided on the issue of electoral reform. While some members supported the Jenkins Commission's recommendations, others were wary of any changes that could potentially weaken Labour's electoral dominance.
3. Focus on Other Reforms: The Blair administration prioritized other constitutional reforms, such as devolution to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and the introduction of the Human Rights Act. Electoral reform, though important, was not seen as an immediate priority.
Why Proportional Representation Wasn't on the 2011 Ballot
Proportional Representation (PR) was a favored option among many advocates of electoral reform, including the Liberal Democrats. PR aims to allocate seats in proportion to the number of votes each party receives, which can lead to a more representative and multi-party parliament. However, PR was not the option presented to voters in the 2011 referendum. Instead, the Alternative Vote (AV) system was chosen.
Several reasons contributed to this decision. Primarily, the AV system was seen as a compromise that could potentially gain broader support. The Conservatives were particularly opposed to PR, arguing that it would lead to weak coalition governments and less decisive leadership. The AV system, by contrast, was less radical and still maintained the constituency link that many valued under FPTP. The choice of AV over PR reflected the political reality of needing to achieve consensus within the coalition government.
The Voting Process and Results
The referendum was held on May 5, 2011, alongside local elections in England, Northern Ireland, and the devolved administrations of Scotland and Wales. Under the AV system, voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than voting for a single candidate. Suppose no candidate receives more than 50% of the first-choice votes. In that case, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed according to the second preferences indicated on those ballots. This process continues until a candidate secures a majority.
The result was a decisive rejection of the AV system. Approximately 67.9% of voters chose to retain the existing FPTP system, while only 32.1% supported the switch to AV. The turnout was relatively low, with about 42% of eligible voters participating.
Reasons Behind the Voting Behavior
Several factors influenced the way people voted in the referendum:
1. Public Understanding and Engagement: There was widespread confusion and lack of understanding about the AV system. Many voters were either unaware of the referendum or did not fully grasp the implications of the proposed change. This lack of engagement played a significant role in the outcome.
2. Campaign Dynamics: The "No to AV" campaign, supported by prominent Conservative and Labour politicians, argued that the AV system was complicated, expensive, and would lead to more coalition governments. The campaign effectively capitalized on public skepticism about change and the potential cost of implementing a new system.
3. Party Politics: The referendum became entangled in broader party politics. The Conservatives were united in their opposition, and many Labour figures also campaigned against AV, despite some Labour members supporting electoral reform. The Liberal Democrats, who were the primary advocates for AV, were struggling with public dissatisfaction due to unpopular coalition government policies, particularly their reversal on tuition fees.
4. Status Quo Bias: Voters often prefer the known over the unknown. The FPTP system, despite its flaws, was familiar and understood by the electorate. The AV system, by contrast, was seen as an unnecessary and risky experiment.
…
The 2011 AV referendum was a crucial event in the UK’s electoral history, highlighting the complexities and challenges of achieving electoral reform. Despite the defeat of the AV proposal, the referendum brought the debate about electoral systems to the forefront of political discourse.
The rejection of AV underscored the difficulties in persuading a skeptical electorate to embrace change, especially when proposed reforms are perceived as complex and politically driven. While the referendum did not result in a new voting system, it remains a pivotal moment in understanding the dynamics of electoral reform in the UK.