No2AV

I can live with pretty much any voting scheme AV, STV, FPTP, FML or whatever that keeps the link between MP and constituency. But I still think change is a bad idea. The more proportional schemes like AV are concerning, not because they are hard or complex, but:

• They might work -- deliver a fairer representation -- and we wouldn't like it.
• They pretty much miss the point of elections entirely

I respect people who say that AV is too complex and slow to count, but I don't think those are important arguments. Sure it doesn't seem complex, but the fact is that many voters are quite simple. We know that the name at the top of the ballot routinely gets a 5% advantage -- the only way makes sense is that some people don't really understand what the vote is and just check off the top box. So, yes, the numbers of the flummoxed will rise once they have to record a second preference, and those people will effectively lose some of their vote under AV. That's a valid argument, but I don't really think it's a clincher. And having to wait a day to two for results is only a problem for the news media. Who cares?

My first objections are based on the risk that AV will work as intended. That the use of second preference votes will push up the representation of smaller parties in a way that reflects the preferences of the voters: people will be more willing to vote for (say) UKIP if they know that their second preference can go to elect the Conservative who is much more likely to win. All those first votes will sometimes leave a minority party in the running, and the result will be that we have more Green/UKIP/Respect/etc MPs. And that seems fair -- we're getting a parliament which mirrors in its MPs the party favours of the electors.

And it is fair. It's also a Bad Thing!

We'll get more coalitions, because minor party MPs make it more likely that neither Labour or Tories can whip a majority into the House of Commons. I'm not against coalitions; anyone who's been active in a political party knows that coalitions is what parties are: Libertarians & hanger/floggers join together in the Tories in the same way that non-conformism & distaste for enterprise make up Labour. Party disagreement and compromise is the bread and butter of political correspondents. When we have a Labour or Tory government, that government is still a coalition, and the range of opinion is hardly less than the current cabinet. The important distinction is that the voters get to see the manifesto before they vote. I rather admire the present government's programme, but the process by which it was put together was, in a purported democracy, disgusting: Party leaders cooked up a list of points in secret discussions, MPs got a vote to take it or leave it, and the country -- the voters -- just have to take it. It's horrible, but if lots of minor party MPs mean you have to form coalitions after the election, there is no other way.

Even if you like post-election coalitions, we're still running a huge risk if we make them more likely. The problem is this: under a more proportional system, then the balance of power -- the selection of left or right -- tends to lie with the smaller parties. If we're lucky that's the Liberals. But it might equally well be the BNP. I'm against that; I'm so far against it that I don't even want to put that temptation in front of party leaders. (And if you think the BNP would only enter a coalition with the Tories, you haven't studied what they want.)

So that's the first set of objections. It might work, it might be fair, and that would be bad.

But AV also fails in a much more important way. AV fails because any scheme that encourages fairness, proportionality or whatever, misses the point of elections:

• We don't have elections to set the complexion of the Commons. That's not what they're for.

After the first six months the balance of opinion at the last election is largely irrelevant. A year-old opinion poll is scrap paper. The purpose of elections is to seat MPs who will hold the government to account -- any constituency-based system can do that -- and, much more importantly, to put the cabinet, every minister, in MORTAL TERROR of the voters!

Does that matter? It matters more than almost anything else. This polite Jacobinism is the true essence of modern democracy. This isn't Athens. Because it's too complex for us to participate, routinely, in every policy choice, we leave them to the government, and that means we leave them to ministers. Not to MPs: To ministers, the executive.

That's not a bad system, but it needs to be controlled or it'll go bad. I don't want ministers to make choices as if they have the Daily Beast second-guessing them all the time, but I do want them to have the welfare of the people in the broad sense as their basic guide. Part of that can be parliamentary scrutiny, but scrutiny doesn't always work. For example, the choices that the energy minister will shortly make about electricity generation are crucial for the future of the country. But what is the value of MP's opinions on electricity? Well, few of them could even tell you how many windmills equal a coal or nuclear station or what the wind speed correlation across the country is. Many of them are looking at the news from Japan and thinking that explosions in a nuclear power plant = nuclear explosions. Parliamentary scrutiny can't help the minister deal with what is fundamentally an expert choice.

And direct voter involvement won't help much. The minister won't read my letters and my MP won't understand. Most voters will have nothing worthwhile to say. So the issue will be resolved by the ministers views, however stupid; by lobbying, however short-sightedly selfish; and by advice from his civil servants, God bless them.

That makes the future look pretty dark -- literally dark in this case. But there is another factor that the minister will bear in mind. If he cocks up he will lose his job. If the government cocks up, all the ministers will lose their jobs and the other lot will have a go. They hate that. Politicians -- even LibDems -- become politicians to get power, and losing an election takes it all away. They will do what is necessary to keep their jobs if they possibly can.

And this is the key. We need  an electoral system that can turf out the government -- all the ministers -- so that they fear us. And if the system routinely puts centre parties in government, it will fail this fundamental test. This time, FPTP did create a coalition, and it may do so again, but the historical trend is for single-party governments.

Consider a minister from a centre party in a coalition cabinet in a PR system, and Energy Minister Huhne makes a perfect example. Lets assume he cocks up, doesn't start building nukes and the government very properly gets the blame when they start to plan electricity rationing. That's going to turn the country against the Tories, but it's much less likely that the Liberals will suffer in the same way. If Huhne keeps his seat and his position in the Liberal party, then the PR system is likely to create a Labour-led coalition, and Huhne is likely move smoothly into a ministerial position in in it. As he does so he may well reflect that he can do whatever he pleases and never take the consequences. AV has succeeded for him and failed for us, and we are on the way to an untouchable political class.

The first rule of a decent electoral system is that it can turn every minister out of his office, just to make sure that they all fear us. FPTP voting seems very unfair, but it will deliver on this first requirement when no other system can. That's the basic qualification, and that's why we should say "No" to AV.