Did the better financed side win by virtue of deeper pockets? Was the result driven by cues from party-leaders rather than based on enlightened decisions by the voters?
And are referendums on electoral reform always unsuccessful? Needless to say, some of these questions cannot be determined with any degree of certainty especially as we still await comprehensive survey data. However, based on referendums in other countries on similar and related issues, as well as compared with previous referendums in the United Kingdom, we can put together coherent picture that enables us to rise above the apparently idiosyncratic and seemingly unique factors that ostensibly determined the outcome of this plebiscite.
In doing so we can conclude that the referendum was not , in fact, that unique, but rather followed some familiar patterns identified in other referendums around the world on electoral reform. Reforms of the electoral system are seen as fundamental constitutional changes; i. In the United Kingdom - it has almost become a convention of the constitution that electoral reforms and changes to the electoral system must be preceded by a referendum [2]. It was, therefore, not surprising that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government included this commitment in the Coalition Agreement:.
That this pledge was included was a result of bargaining. This concession from the Conservatives came after Gordon Brown had ostensibly proposed to put AV into law without a referendum, though the latter has not been independently confirmed [5]. That the Liberal Democrats choose not to go with Brown — despite this offer — may suggest that electoral reform without a referendum would be illegitimate, though it is probably equally, if not more, plausible to cite fundamental personal differences and the sense among the Liberal Democrat leadership that Gordon Brown and Labour — having just lost the election — lacked legitimacy [6].
In other words, the decision to hold a referendum was a result of bargaining; an agreement to disagree. The same conclusion could safely be drawn in Following the publication of the coalition agreement, the government moved swiftly and introduced the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill in the House of Commons on 22 July , which only met with cosmetic challenges [8]. The aim of the legislation was two-fold, 1 to reduce the number of Constituencies from to A Conservative manifesto commitment and 2 to introduce subject to a referendum the Alternative Vote.
Somewhat to the embarrassment of the Labour leader Ed Miliband who was in favour of AV , several Labour peers who were opposed to AV sought to wreck the passage of the Bill in the House of Lords by imposing a forty-percent turnout threshold. Such a threshold had effectively sealed the fate of devolution in Scotland in [9]. This threshold would almost certainly have condemned the proposal to failure, as it has elsewhere. The Bill was finally enacted on 16 February when it was passed by the House of Lords by votes to Yet, despite their commitment to this system, many Labour politicians grew sceptical of the proposed change.
While not officially hostile to AV, the Labour Party leadership seemed to have second thoughts and prominent members sowed doubts about the commitment to changing the system and to their contribution to the campaign. To be sure Ed Miliband, the party leader, threw his weight behind the change, but he was hampered by the fact that many prominent members of his party, such as Margaret Beckett the former foreign secretary , John now Lord Prescott the former deputy prime-minister , and former Home, Defence and Northern Ireland Secretary John now Lord Reid campaigned alongside David Cameron for a no-vote.
While many in the Labour Party campaigned against their manifesto commitment, the reverse was true for the Liberal Democrats. The small government party had forgotten their misgivings about the Alternative Vote and was actively campaigning for its introduction [12].
This was a bit of a volte-face , especially as the Liberal Democrats were at best lukewarm at the idea of introducing AV before election. Referendums on electoral reform are not as unsuccessful as most people may be inclined to think [15]. Nineteen referendums held since , nine have been successful Andorra , Russia , Uruguay , Ecuador , New Zealand , New Zealand , Canberra and Italy — and under very special circumstances Iraq in Ten have been unsuccessful, though of these five were due to failure to meet the turnout requirement, namely in, British Columbia , Italy , , , and in Romania Though of course, without a referendum things are much easier.
Of the 50 electoral system changes enacted without a referendum, law passed by the Czech parliament in is the only one that was not implemented. The law was vetoed by President Havel on the grounds that it violated the constitutional protection of the principle of PR [16]. While public enthusiasm for electoral reform is not great — the referendums in New Zealand in , the Italian referendum in the same year, and Uruguay poll in are the only three examples of votes that have recorded turnout of more than 70 percent — it is inaccurate to suggest that electoral reform referendums are invariably a lost cause.
Like all other referendums, polls on electoral reform are subject to ebbs and flows of popular support and the miscellaneous factors that determine the fate of political campaigns. MPs' expenses: Call to close 'loophole' that allows landlord MPs to claim rent. More than 19 million electors turned out for the vote, with 13 million of those opposing the voting reforms. Across the UK, votes were cast at 42, polling stations staffed by , workers.
Nearly 7. Electoral Commission. The AV system was overwhelmingly rejected in the referendum. Published 7 May It is because there are so many MPs with jobs for life that there are so many who can take their constituents for granted. And it is because there were so many MPs taking their constituents for granted that so many abused their expenses. There was a clear link between how safe an MP's seat was and how likely they were to abuse the system. When a system makes corruption more likely, it should be changed.
Ed Miliband admits AV is "not perfect" but argues that it would help restore the balance of power in favour of voter:. The arguments in this referendum have been framed around whether a Yes vote damages David Cameron or a No vote damages Nick Clegg.
It is about something more. I want to take, head on, the fear designed to appeal to Labour supporters: that a Yes vote in this referendum will be seen as a vindication of Nick Clegg. I know this referendum is far harder to win because of Nick Clegg's broken promises. But we can't reduce the second referendum in British political history to a verdict on one man. The change to the alternative vote deserves our support because it is fairer and because it encourages a better politics.
The British people know that the state of our politics is badly broken. Many see Westminster as remote and out of touch. Politicians should never feel safe or insulated from those they represent.
That's what I want to change. AV referendum: Everything you need to know. All the details on the referendum for introducing the alternative vote in Westminster elections Pros and cons Who is winning the argument.
David Cameron listens as John Reid speaks against the alternative vote system at a campaign event in London. What is the current system? What is the alternative vote? Is AV the same as proportional representation? Do you have to choose more than one candidate under AV?
You can vote just for one if you choose to. Where else is AV used? Why AV? When is the referendum?
0コメント