The systematised madness of AV

This morning on BBC Breakfast Nick Clegg made his key argument for AV: it will make politicians work harder for the vote, he said. The point is that politicians will have to court the votes not only of their natural supporters, but reach out to people who would not traditionally back them. This, however, is an argument for a poorer kind of politics. It will force politicians not to take principled positions but try to triangulate, Blair-style, in order to get as many different kind of factions to vote for them. What should I give the Lib Dem voters? How can I get the BNP voter’s second, or even third, preferences? These are the kind of questions MPs will ponder. Sure, to a degree that already happens — but AV will systematise the madness.

This is directly related to my second concern with AV. I don’t think that the BNP voter’s preference should count as much as it would under AV. Let us be clear. People who vote for extremist parties — such as the BNP — would have their vote counted again and again, while people backing mainstream candidates would have to make do with one vote.

Then there is the question of what comes next. Since AV is nobody’s favourite, it is hard to imagine that a Yes vote would finish the constitutional process. Many Yes campaigners openly admit that they see AV as a way-station to a properly-constituted PR system. Whatever you may think of PR, I abhor the idea that we could be asked to vote on the electoral system now, only to be asked again soon. Britain has been undergoing one of the longest processes of constitutional change of any country, starting with the early Blair administration. Voting Yes will likely continue this well into the future — something I’m weary of.

So while I admit to not giving our electoral system much thought before the Coalition was formed (and having had to read up on the intricacies of AV afterwards), I’m now comfortably in the No camp. Where are you?