Backing for electoral reform in the Scotsman and The Observer

A leader in The Scotsman / Scotland on Sunday backs a Yes vote in May’s referendum:

The fact that it is AV on offer and not one of the other systems is the product of three specific factors: the offer on PR made by the last Labour government to woo the Lib Dems; the arithmetic of the general election result; and the mechanics of the deal between David Cameron and Nick Clegg that delivered the coalition administration. It is the product of specific circumstances. It is also the only game in town. In the world of realpolitik an academic debate on whether a different form of PR would be preferable is just that – purely academic. Nor is it wise to pass up on AV in the hope of an opportunity to introduce a different form of PR in the future. Who can say when such an opportunity might arise? In five years time? Ten? Twenty?…

AV will be a vast improvement on Westminster politics as currently constituted. No vote will be a wasted vote. Every MP will have the consent of a majority of the voters he or she represents. Through this, voters will feel better connected to the process of choosing their representative in the Commons. And – politicians beware – voters will therefore have a higher level of expectation when their MP makes it to the green benches. It’s a Yes.

Meanwhile in The Observer Andrew Rawnsley lays into those campaigning for a No vote in the referendum:

The worst argument advanced in the prime minister’s speech was that AV is too complicated. He said: “I don’t think we should replace a system that everyone gets with one that’s only understood by a handful of elites.”

Well, let us accept that numbering candidates 1, 2, 3 does require a slightly more advanced level of numeracy than simply making a cross. I think Britain will cope. Many Britons already use AV when electing representatives for charities, churches, companies, trade unions, societies and voluntary organisations. Labour and the Lib Dems both elect their leaders by AV. Funnily enough, ever since the 1960s, when the Tories started to elect their leaders, they have used either AV or a close cousin. Had they used first past the post in their last contest, the leader of the Tory party would not be David Cameron. It would be David Davis.

Australians have managed to master AV. The prime minister is surely not suggesting that the fine people of Britain have a lower collective IQ than our friends in the Antipodes?

While his speech did not muster any fresh arguments in favour of first past the post, it did draw attention to the general attitude of the anti-reformers. Their propaganda puts most weight on this contention that AV is just too taxing for the poor old British voter to get his or her head around.

The no campaign will probably not put it so indelicately themselves, but they are calculating that their best hope of preserving first past the post is to mobilise what you could crudely call the Thicko Vote.

You can read his full piece here.

(And apologies for my mix-up with the FT post earlier; I, er…, read the date wrong.)