"How STV resembles the Grand National" or "Why Prateek Buch deserves his FPC place"

I stood in an election recently.

It was for the Lib Dems Federal Policy Committee.

I lost.

The elections use Single Transferable Vote and I was in the bottom quarter of candidates in terms of first preferences. I was eliminated fairly early on during the count. I make no complaints. It was my first time in an internal election like this and I have learnt some useful stuff that will hopefully mean I have a better shot next time.

One person who did not lose in the FPC election however was Prateek Buch. He was elected from the 63 candidates who stood to one of the 15 places available. He is a good candidate and has done lots of high quality work, not least in the area of one of my particular hobby-horses, drugs policy.

However if you look at the election tables which show how the STV count progressed (available here) you would not have guessed at the end of round 1 of counting that Prateek would have been elected. At that stage, after only first preferences were counted he was in joint 27th place, way off the pace.

But this is one of the great things about STV. Of the just over 1,200 voting reps who make up the electorate 19 wanted him on the committee as their first choice. There were more voters who wanted other people on as their first choice. But as the count progressed, something interesting started to happen. As lower preferences from eliminated candidates began to be redistributed and surpluses were also factored in, Prateek started to inch up the pecking order. Slowly at first, but by the time we get to the latter stages of the count he is really piling the transfers on. In this phase he is regularly getting 2, 3 or 4 transfers and this pace keeps him in contention. In the end he just pokes his nose over the finishing line bagging 14th place with 64.05 votes. If he'd been 3 transfers shy of this he would not have got onto the committee.

Tracing this through it does show to me how a transferable electoral system can be a thing of beauty. It actually does take on the auspices of something like a horse race. You can see at each stage who is keeping up and who is falling behind. You can also see which horses have fallen at each stage (I fell at fence 12 for example). Perhaps it is because I am a psephological geek but it was rather exciting to go through the stages and observe how the fortunes of different candidates fared as it progressed.

It is invidious to try and say what would have happened if this election has been run using first past the post. Voters would have voted differently and it is never clear how the final result would have differed. What is clear is that Prateek may only have had the first preferences of 19 voters, but there were many more than that (more than 3 times as many) who preferred him to many of the other candidates. He may not have had as deep support as some of the much higher placed candidates such as Lord Rennard or Evan Harris. But he certainly had a decent breadth of support. Crucially his wider appeal as a candidate put him above most of the candidates who after the first round looked like they were better placed.

During the AV campaign last year, one of the criticisms used by the "No" camp was that transferable systems "allow losers to win". That was always based on a specious reading of how AV works and used an extremely narrow definition of "loser". It was essentially anyone who did not have a plurarlity of votes after round one. AV is effectively just a single member variant of STV but it does also allow a candidate with a breadth of support to win even if a plurality (although not a majority) of voters prefer another candidate as their first choice.

I have to say that I am much happier with a process that allows such sophistication in voting preferences and for all that information to feed into the result.

Prateek Buch very much deserves his place on the committee.

As for me, I clearly need many more first preferences next time I stand to have a chance. It's all very well having a breadth of support, but you have to stay in the race long enough for them to count!

Outline of a No2STV campaign

Now that the AV referendum has been lost, those of us who supported the change are licking our wounds and wondering when the next opportunity for electoral change for the Commons may present itself.

At the moment it is looking like a long way off. However I think in the aftermath of the failed AV bid it is worth having a look at what those of us in favour of electoral reform can learn from this campaign to be borne in mind in the future, whenever the next opportunity may present itself.

The system I and most other Liberal Democrats (and more generally most in favour of electoral reform) favour is Single Transferable Vote. It is much more proportional than FPTP (or AV) but importantly it is similar to AV in that you rank candidates in order of preference. The big difference being that more than one MP is elected for each larger constituency (between 3 and 6 is optimal).

Having witnessed at close quarters the tactics used by the No2AV campaign I think we are in a position to at least have a stab at predicting what the outline of a No2STV campaign may look like further down the line. I think this will be a useful exercise in order to ensure that those campaigning for a Yes vote are ready to handle the sort of things that are likely to be thrown at us.

Here are variations on five campaigning messages that I expect we would face:

1) "It's too expensive". This was one of the No2AV campaign's most pushed lines certainly in the early days. Having spoken to people it would seem that this message was resonating. The claim that AV would cost £250 million was bunkum. But it worked this time so you can expect it will be tried again. And of course next time it is likely to be harder to rebut as we already know that counting machines are used for some STV elections. I would suggest that the response to this has to be firmly and consistently on the basis of principle. Moving to STV may cost a little more but what price democracy? I have made the point previously that moving to the universal franchise (twice as many ballot papers to print, issue and count) was more expensive but nobody seriously argues now that women should not have the vote. I have found when trying to make this point that I have faced scorn for appearing to try and conflate votes for women with electoral reform but I maintain it is a fair comparison because to argue it is too expensive to change the electoral system is a diversion and this highlights it. A Yes2STV campaign would definitely need to get on the front foot regarding this message from the off.

2) "It's too complicated". Again, this is a message that was used to apparently good effect against AV. And let's be honest, if AV is considered too complicated then STV could arguably be even more so. Even though I certainly think most people can grasp the concept of what is going on in both cases, a big failure of the Yes2AV campaign was in educating people about how it works. Instead of the first referendum broadcast featuring people shouting at "MPs" using megaphones they would have been much better off explaining how AV actually works (there was none in that broadcast) and highlighting a small number of key reasons why it is better than FPTP. Similarly for STV it will be vital that the system is concisely explained as often as possible and with key messages as to why this is better. With STV I actually think the second part of this will be easier because there is a very clear message regarding fairness with the proportionality factor.

3) "It will help the BNP". Or substitute BNP for whatever extreme party (or parties) exist at the point of the campaign. It proved remarkably difficult to shake this accusation against AV during the recent campaign. This was particularly surprising to me because the BNP was actually in favour of keeping FPTP. However the No campaign rather deftly managed to sow confusion by discussing how lower preferences from those voting BNP as their first preference could end up "deciding elections". I am not going to deconstruct the counter arguments here, it has been done elsewhere many times (best example I have seen is here in this excellent post by mathematician Tim Gowers which incidentally rebuts pretty much all the No2AV campaign's claims) but I will make the point that if the No2AV campaign was able to make this message stick when the BNP are against the change themselves, then I think we can have a pretty good guess at how hard they will push this message when the BNP are likely to be for the change. And I would imagine moving to a more proportional system, even STV would be something that extremist parties like the BNP would be in favour of. I actually think it would be pretty hard for parties like the BNP to get any MPs under STV because it is preferential and therefore makes it very hard for parties that are actively strongly disliked by most people. However having seen what happened during the AV campaign I would expect this message to be drowned out as it relies on a fairly detailed understanding of the underlying counting process for STV. What I would suggest for this message right from the off is that it needs to be rebutted with the argument that the way to beat parties like the BNP is not to rig the electoral system against them. All that does is make them look like martyrs. Instead the way is to beat them by arguing against their extreme and unworkable policies. There are other arguments that can be deployed here too but I think the one of principle is the one that is on strongest ground and should fit in with other campaign messages well too.

4) "Under STV, candidates that come first can end up losing". This was another effective message from No2AV. Of course it all depends on what your definition of "coming first" is. No2AV was relying on the number of votes after one round of counting which is what we are all used to under FPTP. Because under STV there would be multiple seats up for grabs it would be a little different. But I can certainly imagine them trying to argue that STV is "unfair" because a candidate that is way behind when first preferences are taken into account could still eventually end up getting a seat. I expect because the move would be to multi-member constituencies that the change is quite wide reaching and therefore a direct comparison with FPTP is harder. But I am certain No2STV will find a way, and probably quite an effective way of portraying this as unfair. It would be tempting for Yes2STV to try and rebut this claim with technical details but I think instead the "fairness" mantle has to be seized immediately by Yes regarding the proportionality argument. Once people understand that the proportion of MPs elected will be much closer to the number of votes cast, any claim about fairness regarding second, third and so on preferences would hopefully have much less potency.

5) "It will lead to weak and unstable government.". The Yes2AV campaign expended quite a lot of energy trying to claim that coalitions and hung parliaments were no more likely under AV than FPTP. This was a very defensive approach and they may well have been better off trying to argue in favour of coalitions in principle rather than the rather muddled messages that ended up coming across. At least a Yes2STV campaign would have little choice but to argue from the off in favour of coalitions as STV is certainly much more likely than FPTP to produce them. Indeed that is precisely why most campaigners for reform want it!

This is obviously just a very first pass by someone who is admittedly biased but followed the campaign from both sides with great interest. I was disappointed by both AV campaigns as I have blogged about in detail previously. But I still think it is worth thinking ahead whilst the wounds the Yes campaign are licking are still very fresh! I expect others will have their own ideas and I have almost certainly missed some important lessons here. One that springs to mind instantly is the "multiple votes" argument. But I am very tired of rebutting that particular one and let's face it, we have a lot of time to learn all of the lessons!

In conclusion, in some ways STV will be easier to argue for than AV. It has some advantages over FPTP (from a reformer's perspective) that are probably easier to sell than AV. Its proportionality is whatever your view certainly a clear change, rather than the rather mixed change in this respect that AV would have given. However the counting process is harder to explain than AV and that is the area in which I expect No2STV would try to make the most capital (I plan to come back to this point in a future post where I will discuss some other potential broader consequences for the electoral reform movement from the AV No vote). I think another thing that is clear from the AV failure is that more time would be needed to ensure the new system could be explained and understood much better than AV was by 5th May 2011.

Oh, and one more very important lesson. Please, please, please let's not have the referendum on the same day as any other elections!

FOOTNOTE: I have made the assumption for the purposes of this post that an STV campaign would follow roughly the same blueprint as the AV one did, i.e. a single question referendum with only two choice with a No and Yes campaign batting for each side. I actually think there are much better and more sophisticated deliberative processes that could and arguably should be used for something as important as changing our electoral system but that argument is for another day.

This post was first published on Dale & Co.

Lib Dems should take the Tory deal

I have agonised about publishing this post but in the end I have to be honest about what I think is politically possible.

First of all I think that our negotiating team has done a great job. The fact that the Conservative Party is now offering a guaranteed, whipped vote in the Commons on the Alternative Vote system is testament to how well they have done. The Tories are so wedded to FPTP that that has to be viewed as a real concession.

However let me also be very clear that AV is not what I ultimately want. It can actually be less proportional than FPTP. I went through some contortions on this subject last year which revolved around pragmatism of accepting AV as a "first step" towards the much more proportional STV (it gets people used to preference voting, removes the need for tactical voting and would probably give the Lib Dems 50% more seats than under FPTP). At the time I concluded that we should do everything we can to try and get STV. Indeed in a blog post I wrote on Friday I stated that PR is a red line for me in the negotiations. But in the last few days I have watched how the discussions have gone and have talked to numerous people from both Labour and the Conservatives and have concluded that with the electoral arithmetic as it stands at the moment, we cannot get PR.

Every single Conservative I have spoken to (and there have been a fair few) off the record has assured me that a referendum on AV is their absolute bottom line. I do not think this is a negotiating tactic, I think it is a statement of fact. No matter how much I disagree with them on this that is the position.

So the alternative that we are looking at is some sort of minority Labour/Lib Dem government perhaps bolstered by the support of nationalist parties and the Green MP. Gordon Brown has promised instant legislation to bring in AV for the Commons and a referendum on something more proportional. There are numerous problems with this approach but the most fundamental one is that even with all the nationalists and parties that would support AV and a referendum would get us to about 330 votes with about 315 ranged against it from the Conservatives and their Northern Ireland partners. It would only take a few Labour MPs to vote against this for it to fall. And having conversed with some Labour backbench MPs I am convinced that there would be enough for this to happen. So what Brown is promising simply cannot be delivered. That is aside from all the other problems about being seen as "a coalition of the losers", propping up Brown for the next few months and how precariously balanced such a government would be constantly teetering on the edge etc. which are big enough in themselves. The "prize" at the end of it all would not even be there anyway.

(Also, as a brief aside I do not want AV, or any change to the electoral system imposed on the country in any situation. People did not vote for that and it should be put to a referendum).

The other option is to allow the Tories to form a minority government but then we would be unlikely to get any change to the electoral system. We would also have forfeited our chance to show what we are capable of in government. Frankly, if we are ever going to get PR we need to demonstrate how coalitions can work in practise. This is our chance to do that. If we forfeit this chance then we risk making the arguments against stronger by showing that we are not willing to step up to the plate and hence giving succour to opponents of reform.

So although it is very difficult for me given my feelings about electoral reform, I have concluded that the red line that I stated should be there on Friday is unachievable with the current parliamentary arithmetic. If we'd been able to get another dozen or more seats or if Labour had outsted Brown last year (as I kept telling them they should do) then things might be very different. But politics is the art of the possible and PR at the moment, sadly is not.

I am going to dismiss the idea of a "confidence and supply" arrangement (as I blogged about on Sunday, it is too risky and from what I can tell our negotiating team seems to agree) so that only leaves us with agreeing to a coalition with the Conservatives.

There are still lots of things that we could achieve in a coalition and things such as fixed term parliaments, a fully elected (and proportional) House of Lords appear to be potentially on the table as well as all sorts of other things that I expect a Conservative administration on its own would not implement. But with the Lib Dems, all of these things become possible. We should also make very, very clear that our acceptance of AV is for us just a first step and reiterate ad nauseum our ultimate commitment to a proportional system.

As I said at the start, it pains me to write what I have done above and I appreciate it may make me look a bit inconsistent and hypocritical but in all negotiations you aim high and ultimately get what you can. I think we have done that but now is the time to accept the limits of what can be achieved. I expect some Lib Dems will be annoyed with me but I have to call it as I see it.

Most important now is to conclude a deal. We are risking damaging our reputation if these negotiations go on too much longer. I have done numerous radio phone in programmes in the last few days and I am just starting to get the feeling that the public's patience is wearing a bit thin. Ordinarily I would be happy for us to take our time but with the global financial markets as precariously balanced as they are at the moment a decision needs to be taken. Preferably today. At the latest tomorrow.

In conclusion, the situation we find ourselves in is far from ideal but a coalition with the Tories is now realistically the best outcome for the party and the country.

We should take the Tory deal.

Reducing MPs won't damage government, but it's the wrong reform

Hadleigh Roberts has done an interesting blog post with the alliterative title "Cutting down the Commons will cripple Cameron’s government". In it he argues that if David Cameron got his way and was able to cut the number of MPs by 10% he would cause himself some big problems and that he would end up with more Hannans and less pliable lobby fodder as well as more forced government appointments.

In order to illustrate this, he uses the classic quote from Yes Minister:

There are only 630 MPs and a party with just over 300 MPs forms a government and of these 300, 100 are too old and too silly to be ministers and 100 too young and too callow. Therefore there are about 100 MPs to fill 100 government posts.

I do not really agree with Hadleigh's analysis though:

1) Why would reducing the number of MPs cause Cameron to have more "problematic" MPs as he sees them? I see no reason why having less MPs would favour one faction or another. There would be less of all types of MP.

2) Hadleigh's assumption seems to be that if the number of MPs was cut by 10% that the number of government slots would remain the same, thus reducing the proportion of backbenchers from the governing party and increasing the number of MPs "on the government payroll". That doesn't need to be the case. In fact it is likely that the only way Cameron would get a measure like this through is precisely if he pledged to reduce the number of ministers by a proportionate amount, or perhaps by even more.

3) That line from Yes Minister is a joke. There may be a ring of partial truth to it but the idea that the government is effectively in zugzwang when it comes to choosing its members is not credible. Have a look at the movement of Labour MPs over the last 12 years and you will see that there is clearly scope for promotion and demotion.

Where I do agree with Hadleigh is what Cameron's motivation is for this. He is trying to "even things up" between him and Labour. By reducing the number of seats, the inherent bias that in present within the electoral system as the seats are currently constituted will be lessened and the Tories will be on a more equal footing with Labour in this respect. Of course no other party will get a look in, it's just good for the Tories and all the unfairness of the current system is retained that shuts other parties out of power and in most cases out of the Commons altogether. This is the reform that Cameron has been pushing for ages and, surprise surprise it's the one that gives his party the biggest advantage.

The real reform we need is a roughly proportional system using STV with multi-member constituencies.

LDV readers vote for AV over FPTP!?

Acronyms!

A surprising result from the Lib Dem Voice poll on whether we should back Alternative Vote over First Past the Post (assuming it was to be on offer). Apparently 51% (out of 345 votes overall) think that we should.

As I have blogged about before I want Single Transferable Vote. I was dubious about Alternative Vote Plus (AV+) as are a number of other Lib Dem bloggers (e.g. here and here) but at least that would be more closely proportional than FPTP. There's no such guarantee with AV. It may even end up being less proportional than FPTP. It can exagerate landslides if the second placed party is unpopular. It would have given Labour an even bigger majority in 1997 for example.

So why would LDV readers support it? Here are a few theories:

1) They think that it would be a "step in the right direction". AV does at least have the distinction of ensuring candidates get 50% of the vote in their seat after all the transfers are made. And it gets the electorate used to listing preferences. The reasoning would be that after this move, it would make campaigning for a further move to STV easier. I think this is completely wrong. The electorate would not stand for further changes after a change to AV for a very long time probably decades. It would actually set back the cause of those of us who want a proportional system.

2) Perhaps lots those who responded are not Lib Dems. This would make sense as I am sure LDV is much more widely read than just the party membership and there was no restriction on who could vote. It would be interesting to see what the results of a similar poll that was only open to party members (as LDV have the ability to do I think) would be.

3) Lots of Lib Dems favour a system that would likely work against the party's interests. Whilst I like to think that we Lib Dems are not as brazenly partisan as other parties but I very much doubt they would actively vote to make the situation any worse for us!

4) Perhaps not all respondents understood the distinction between AV, AV+, STV etc. It can get very confusing and sometimes politicians deliberately obfuscate by for example saying AV when they mean AV+.

Or maybe there are other reasons. What do you think?

Tom Harris MP's view of Labour's broken manifesto commitments

This has been bugging me for two days now so I thought I had better blog about it!

Tom Harris, the Labour MP wrote a blog post on Sunday entitled "If it's a Labour policy, put it in the manifesto" where he bemoans the fact that the political agenda is currently dominated by talk of electoral reform. He thinks this is an issue that non-political people are not interested in and he suggests that it should be put in the manifesto for the next election instead of talking about it now.

In order to counter the obvious rejoinder to this he says:

And to stop all the inevitable whinging along the lines of “But we can’t believe you because you promised this in 1997 and it never happened, boo hoo, etc…” we could commit to holding it in on a specific date — say, the same day as the next local authority elections. 

So he is basically saying that we should stop whining about their broken promise. In the comments further down he says that Labour fufilled 95% of its 1997 pledges (not sure where he gets this figure from) and describes the electoral reform referendum as one of a tiny number of pledges that "didn't come to pass". DIDN'T COME TO PASS? As if it was just one of those things rather than something that Tony Blair booted as hard as he could into the long grass once he realised he was going to be in under First Past the Post for 10 years or more.

In some of the comments later there are people saying things like "now is not the time" and "there are more important things" and "this is not linked to the expenses scandal". Well, I reckon:

1) It is NEVER the time for parties and people who have a massive partisan advantage with the existing system.

2) There is nothing more important in politics than re-enfranchising the millions of people whose votes currently count for nothing.

3) The rotten First Past the Post system gifts two-thirds of MPs effectively seats for life. It is not surprising that there is an apparent correlation between seat safety and the expenses scandal. Even putting that to one side, what this whole farago has demonstrated is how woefully out of touch our political classes are with the electorate. Electoral reform to a proportional system (Single Transferable Vote) would help to bridge this chasm and help restore faith in politics as MPs would have to be more responsive to their constituents. How's that for a link?

Aaaand breathe!