The Alternative Vote Referendum and Brazen Self-Interest

In his book Predictioneer, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita explains how “maths, science and the logic of brazen self-interest” can be used to predict the likely outcome of world and political events, often with a remarkable degree of success. Game theory may well hold the answer to the outcome of the AV referendum but while Bueno de Mesquita usually has data from the FBI and CIA to work from, we have to guess what the voters believe their best outcome to be.

So what do the parties think? Conservatives and many Labour MPs know that they can win overall majorities under First Past the Post (FPTP) so see no need to change the system. Most LibDems, often in second place, think AV will benefit them. Some Labour MPs believe that they stand to gain under AV as the left-of-centre parties will no longer be divided to the degree where the Conservatives can come through the middle. Minority parties tend to think that they will do better under AV as their (first preference) votes would go up even if this won’t instantly turn into seats. There is a perception that AV would be bad for the Conservatives as they are few people’s second preference; while the BNP have correctly deduced that as a ‘Marmite’ party they are not likely to attract many transfers from voters who did not give them their first preference. Other politicians have suggested shorter term motives should be considered, such as Peter Mandelson advising voters to kick David Cameron by voting yes while NOtoAV have attempted to tap into public anger towards Nick Clegg to get the result that they want.

But how much of this will directly affect the average voter? Supporters of FPTP say that AV will lead to more coalitions but opinion polls show that the public tend to like the idea of coalitions in principle and that hung parliaments are not as scary as some would have us believe. Yes To Fairer Votes say that AV will make politicians work harder but again most people think that their own local MP is hard working already.

It is hard then to guess what the voters really think is in their own best interest. Turnout is likely to be higher in parts of the UK where there are elections to devolved assemblies and polls show that in Scotland a greater proportion of people look set to vote yes to AV. Familiarity with a non-FPTP systems has been credited for this. Perhaps surprisingly the fact that Scotland has a four, rather than three, party system is not. Consider the possibility of a mainstream voter (that is to say voting for an established and not a minority party) in Scotland. They may have decided which party they want to vote for but know that they have no chance of winning. They may have a second favourite party who equally can’t win in their constituency. So their first and second preferences may be for the third and fourth place parties. This means the voter, even before they decide which of the top two placed parties is the lesser of two evils, has to decide whether to vote in this tactical manner for their least worst option; or to not have a real say in the outcome but vote for the party they want most but can’t have. Anyone who has found themselves in this position (or a variant of it in a three party system) may well feel that the alternative vote would let them have their cake and eat it too. They could vote with their principles and still influence the result. This suggests that their best option is to vote yes to AV.

The reason that the devolved assembly elections are important here is that voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland cannot help but think about how the voting system affects them in their constituency rather than in the abstract and when voters think about the situation in their own constituency vastly different results can occur. Polls at the 2010 General Election, particularly after that first TV debate, suggested a massive surge in the popularity of the LibDems. By the only poll that really mattered this had melted away and on Election Day the LibDems lost seats. Why? Because for voters the election was eventually not about who would be Prime Minister but who would be their local MP and in many constituencies the LibDems had no chance of winning. Voters are less interested in the theory of electoral systems, and more interested in the practical implications. Will most people in England decide that elections fought under AV will not really be vastly different? Will they, particularly where there are no devolved or local elections taking place, be bothered enough to turn out at all?

It’s worth pausing here to note that the vast majority of people do vote for the first or second placed candidate in their constituency (although some of these will be tactical votes.) Many people’s MPs did get over 50% of the vote anyway, so AV would have made no difference to them. And in three way marginal constituencies even those whose party came third may well feel like they had a fair crack of the whip anyway. This suggests that a majority of voters could easily come to the conclusion that there is no practical difference for them either way.

Even people who find the theory of voting systems interesting are justified in coming to the conclusion that in practice this debate has been pretty poor and pretty boring. And if the majority of voters have no interest or no idea they may decide it is in their best interest to back FPTP as it is simpler, it’s what they know and it won’t cost any extra. If they opt to go with the devil they know (and understand) rather than the devil they don’t then they will decide it is best to vote no.

But they may equally decide that if it makes no difference to them they should say a resounding ‘not bothered’ to the whole thing and stay away. No so much acting out of brazen self-interest but out of no interest at all. And with the quality of debate we have had, who can blame them?