Alternative Vote Top-up

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the Politics series
Electoral methods
Single-winner
First-past-the-post Plurality Multiple-round systems Two round Exhaustive ballot Preferential systems Condorcet criterion Condorcet method Copeland's method Kemeny-Young method Minimax Nanson's method Ranked Pairs Schulze method Bucklin voting Coombs' method Instant-runoff (Alternative Vote) Contingent vote Borda count Non-ranking methods Approval voting Range voting
Multiple-winner
Proportional representation Mixed-member Party-list  (open · closed) Highest averages D'Hondt method Sainte-Laguë method Largest remainder Hare quota Droop quota Imperiali quota Single transferable vote CPO-STV Schulze STV Semi-proportional representation Cumulative voting Limited voting Single non-transferable vote Parallel voting Non-proportional representation Plurality-at-large Preferential block voting
Random selection
Sortition Random ballot
Social choice theory
Arrow's theorem Voting system criteria
Politics portal
v • d • e

The Alternative Vote Top-up, or Alternative Vote Plus (AV+), is a voting system intended for use in elections to a legislature. The system was proposed in 1998 by the Jenkins Commission for use in elections to the UK Parliament.^[1]. To date, the system has not been implemented in Britain or anywhere else. No action has yet been taken on that committee's recommendations. As proposed by the Commission, AV+ is similar to the Mixed Member Proportional system (called the Additional Member System in Britain), but varies in significant ways.

Contents 1 System description 1.1 Advantages 1.2 Criticisms 1.3 Reaction in the UK 1.4 See also 2 References

[edit] System description

Under AV+, most candidates are elected from single-member constituencies under the Alternative Vote (AV) (or instant-runoff) system. An additional 15–20% of candidates are elected under the regional party lists. Like the Additional Member System (AMS), AV+ list seats are allocated to offset the disproportionality created by the single-member constituencies. Unlike AMS, with 20% or fewer of legislators elected from party lists, AV+ would not achieve full proportionality, but would correct some of the disparity caused by single-member-district elections. List candidates are elected on open lists, meaning voters have a role in choosing which particular candidates on the party lists are elected. This helps address criticism that AV+ would create two classes of legislators: one with individual mandates and one without.

[edit] Advantages

• Top up systems using FPTP are already in use in Scotland and Wales and AV is in use in elections around the world.^[2]
• Would require relatively minor modifications to existing system.
• Would lead to a more proportional result than first-past-the-post system (FPTP) or AV, but would still give an built-in advantage to the largest party and allow one-party rule during landslide years.
• Would be more likely to prevent extremist parties or fringe parties winning seats than entirely proportional systems such as D'Hondt method, although parties considered extremist have won seats in the European Parliament under similar systems to that used in the TopUp where fewer seats were up for contest than those proposed in the Jenkins Report (for example the BNP in the UK who won 2 seats out of 78 seats under D'Hondt method in the 2009 European Elections).
• Would lessen the problems of "split voting" and the necessity of tactical voting.

[edit] Criticisms

From FPTP supporters:

• It is more complex than FPTP for voters
• It is too likely to lead to coalition government
• It will lead to "two types of MP", as a majority would be linked directly to constituency with a the minority with a larger area overlapping the first group.
• It weakens the psychological link between voters and their representatives.

From STV supporters:

• It isn't proportional enough
• It is too likely to lead to one-party government
• It will lead to "two types of MP"
• The constituencies will still not be able to respect "natural boundaries" (although the top-up regions will)
• It will not eliminate "safe seats"

From AMS supporters:

• It isn't proportional enough
• It is too likely to lead to one-party government
• The top-up vote is too complex

[edit] Reaction in the UK

Prime Minister Tony Blair issued a statement, saying that the report "makes a well-argued and powerful case for the system it recommends"^[3] and that "it is very much a modification of the existing Westminster system, rather than any full blown PR system as practised in other countries." He also praised Lord Jenkins for his work and gave the recommendations a cautious welcome, pointing out in particular that change would help address the "complete absence of Conservative representation in Scotland".

However, leading figures in the Cabinet at the time (e.g. Home Secretary Jack Straw, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, Chancellor Gordon Brown, Margaret Beckett, the Labour NEC) all strongly opposed any reform of the voting system, and effectively killed the chance of any change.

The report was welcomed by the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, although at the time the Liberal Democrats remained largely committed to STV. Currently, the Liberal Democrats wish to see the implementation of the AV+ system if STV can't be achieved. ^[4]

The report was heavily criticised by the Conservative party, with leader William Hague branding its proposals "a dog's breakfast".

In a May 2009 article in The Times, British Health Secretary Alan Johnson MP called for a referendum on the adoption of this system as part of the response to the 2009 parliamentary expenses scandal. In this piece he praised the system as "an elegant Solution". ^[5] David Cameron, Leader of the Conservative Party, declared on May 26 that his party does not support the AV+ system, or any other form of proportional representation, as it would create "weak governments".^[6]

In June 2009, it was reported by the BBC that the Prime Minister Gordon Brown was considering changing the electoral system as part of a package of constitutional reform.^[7]

[edit] See also

• List of democracy and elections-related topics

[edit] References