Alan Thornett's article How should we vote in the AV referendum (SR64) sparked a lively correspondence on the Socialist Resistance website. We reprint here some edited extracts from the discussion, including replies from Alan. • Quite rightly it has not been a massive priority to go out all guns blazing to back the Yes campaign - AV is hardly a pivotal issue for the class. But Alan is right in his sense of the momentum a Yes vote brings - and that is AWAY from the idea that first past the post (FPTP) is in any sense democratic. The question is posed concretely in this referendum on 5 May. In my view we should critically back the Yes vote and engage where we can in terms of opening up discussions around the forms that democracy could take in 21st century if workers were able to take power! Sam Feeney much of the British left can effectively support the FPTP system - that delivers massive majorities to parties with 30 odd percent of the vote... is True: AV/preferential voting will not end the two (three) party system but it would open a space for left of Labour candidates to run while still allowing second-preference votes to flow to Labour. • AV is of no use to left-ofLabour parties as they will inevitably find themselves unable to cross the 50% barrier; this makes it less likely for leftwing candidates to win seats than under the current system. Majority voting systems privilege the political centre and suppress hard left politics- only a more proportional system with a low barrier to entry would be of use to the far-left. Even worse AV is likely to pull Labour even further towards the political centre and to permanently court coalitions with the Yellow-Tories. Simon • Our arguments for AV are not tactical - whether it will or will not make election of a Labour government easier. Our support is because AV is a tiny bit more democratic than FPTP - that's all. We're in favour of democratic reforms in bourgeois society: they give the working class a little bit more space for political activity. Phil W • The bottom line here is that it is not possible to elect a truly representative parliament through singlemember constituencies. As long as we maintain this fetishistic insistence on one MP representing each constituency, we will have a legislature that is unrepresentative. With an even distribution of votes, and several parties competing, a parliament could theoretically be elected comprising solely members of one party, which gained under 30% of votes nationally. Unless this issue is addressed, any electoral change is likely to be tinkering at the edges. Roland • If the No vote wins, some will use that to justify FPTP. But if the Yes campaign wins, we will be stuck with a voting system which still does not reward parties who come second and is not proportional. The worst thing about this referendum is that neither system is very democratic and they do not meet the demands paigned for decades for genuine PR. If we end up with AV on 5th May, we will Sam • Whilst a referendum potentially entrenches the entrenches the two options equally in this case. It is fairly obvious that a YES vote would show an appetite for change whilst a NO vote would show an appetite for the status quo. Most of those supporting a YES vote (including most Lib Dems actually) see AV as inadequate and want to go further towards a PR system. In the event of a NO vote those who have won it (and in that sense own it) will be supporters of FPTP and will regard it and use it to defend the existing system. Any mention of electoral reform would in future be met with the stock response that "we have had a referendum and that is the end of it". For an MP to need to win majority support would be a progressive reform and we should therefore support it even if it would prevent, very occasionally, a left-wing candidate being elected in a split vote. We should not argue for a less democratic system in order to benefit the left. The way to redress injustice in the electoral system is not to protect an undemocratic practice but to fight for a AV would clearly benefit left parties at local level because voters could vote for their preferred (left) candidate as well as voting against their worst option to keep them out. Left support could be pressure to use a single vote purely to keep out the Tories. You can comment on many of the issues raised in articles in this issue of Socialist Resistance at www.socialistresistance.org. or simply drop us a line at PO Box 62732, London, SW2 9GQ
Feedback
This is scanned print, not web text. It was read off the printed page by OCR, so expect dropped opening letters, run-together words and the occasional wrong character. Where an article began partway down a page, the previous piece's closing lines may appear at the top. The scanned issue is the authority; this text is here so the words can be found at all.