Does the Alternative Vote Bring Tyranny to Australia?

Number 510 in the never-ending series of Questions to Which the Answer is No is asked by Antony Green, an Australian elections pundit.

It recalls the contribution made to the debate in the House of Commons on 4 March 1931 by Captain Anthony Eden (right):

I happened to be in Australia in 1925 when, by the working of this Alternative Vote, the Labour party was absolutely extinguished in the Senate. I remember the extent of public feeling on the subject in Australia, and I remember that the remark that I made was: “How very fortunate we are that we have not got a system like that in England.” That election was much further from representing the mind of the nation than we have ever been in this country.

Eden also said, just as is said today:

Never before has an important proposal for electoral reform been brought forward with less enthusiasm for it in any section of the community.

The future prime minister then rather undermined his case with this, an argument which is not used in public by the No campaign today:

This Clause is only in this Bill because we have at the moment a three-party system—the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was perfectly correct—and it is only justifiable if you are going to perpetuate a three-party system. I do not believe we are, but even if we were, it would not justify us in introducing a method of voting which will multiply the number of parties. Personally, I do not enjoy a three-party system. I think we should get back to a two-party system in the national interest as soon as possible.

More from your parliamentary reporter from 1931 shortly.

Meanwhile, number 509 in the series was asked by Tim Montgomerie in an article about Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, in the Mail the other day:

“Is it time to give this disloyal, pro-Europe old bruiser the boot?”

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye

• Poll alert
• Was An Alien Space Fish Just Filmed Outside The Space Station?
• Economic History Lesson
• A Triumph for David Cameron
• The Myth of the Sainted Attlee

• cping500

  Actually both AV and STV were in the Representation of the People Bill in 1919. They were withdrawn after intensive debate. Maybe it is worth revisiting.

  Incidentally I intend usuing my vote come waht may for the person I want to be elected, not their opponents

• http://pulse.yahoo.com/_B5JYF3KQT5ABI5ADC6YS4OJAGA Sam

  The Australian Senate uses multi-member electorates (six per State in 1925; 12 per State and 2 per territory in 2011). Typically, half were elected at each election.

  AV didn’t work because the party that got more than 50% of the two party preferred vote in a State usually won ALL the Senate seats for the State that were up for election. Hence, wipe-outs were quite possible. Since 1949, Senate elections have been by proportional representation, precisely to stop such wipe-outs.

  On the other hand, because political affiliations tend to be clustered, it would be HIGHLY unlikely that preferential voting/AV would see such wipe-outs in single member electorates.