Iain Martin is surely right to suppose that unveiling celebrities and luvvies who support changing the voting system is a good way for the Yes to AV campaign to lose support. But it’s not as if the No campaign is playing a blinder either. Today’s Dreadful Argument for Retaining First Past the Post argues that we simply cannot afford to change the voting system. Apparently it will cost “up to £250 million” to do so.
Colour me sceptical. In the first place, there are the costs of the referendum itself (£91m it is claimed) and these might also be considered the cost of retaining FPTP. The best that may be said is that this is an argument against referenda, not against this particular proposal. Already, then, the actual cost of AV is down to £159m. This is accounted for by pretending we must spend £130m on “the cost of electronic counting necessitated by AV.” But there is no requirement that votes must be counted electronically, AV or not. It’s perfectly possible to count the ballots by hand – which is what they do in Australia. (This is also true of elections conducted by STV, as in Ireland) However, if we did switch to electronic counting it’s also possible that the machines would pay for themselves in a single election and, in the longer run, actually save money.
So, actually, the No campaign’s argument really rests on a notional £26m spent on “voter education”. Even if true – and how expensive can it be to send postcards reminding people that they should rank candidates in order of preference? – this does not seem a crippling expense. Especially since it won’t be paid until 2015.
Nor, of course, does this include the costs of FPTP, not the least of which being that millions of people find it pointless or counter-productive to express their true preferences. I’d call that a fairly hefty flaw in the system.
I’m sure there are excellent arguments for First Past the Post (as opposed to arguments against the Alternative Vote) so it would be nice to hear the No campaign make them. Otherwise there’s a risk that people might be persuaded to vote Yes because the No campaign hasn’t made a case that stands up to even the most modest level of scrutiny.
UPDATE: Sunder Katwala has more.
Comments