The proposal for using Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons has been overwhelmingly defeated, as (to be fair) I always thought it would be.
The "No" campaign was dominated by lies, fictitious and distorted claims, scare stories, and muddled ideas about the reality of how AV would work. Indeed, David Blunkett openly admitted on polling day itself that the claim that AV would cost £250 million, due to the use of fictitious and non-existent counting machines, was simply made up.
But that is not why the NO campaign won. The "Yes" campaign was almost as bad: it was mediocre and confusing, and made exaggerated and irrelevant claims about MPs "working harder" and ending safe seats. Even though I prefer AV rather than FPTP, I do so on the principle of the issue; I found it annoying that my support for AV (as a stepping-stone towards STV) was assumed by some campaigners to be part of a plan for building a mythical "progressive majority" or part of a plot to oppose or isolate the Conservative Party. If such narrow and petty party-political points had been at the fore of my thinking, then I might have been persuaded to vote NO myself.
Why did we not hear more relevant and useful arguments from the YES campaign about split voting, pluralism, the avoidance of guesswork or tactical voting, and the quality of representation? The broad mass of the people voted against AV - not because they were lied to by the NO campaign (though they were), nor because they were patronised by the YES campaign (though they were), nor even because they were confused by the media; but because, essentially, they didn't get it. They didn't think it was important. The average voter does not regard it as a matter of concern if an MP is elected by only 35% or 40% of the voters, rather than by 50%. The average voter wants to vote for the candidate of their first choice, regardless of tactical considerations, and is satisfied not by the winning or losing but by the taking part.
In the 1950s and 1960s, First-Past-The-Post worked reasonably well in providing a binary choice between two alternative governments, in the reasonable expectation that a substantial lead for one party would provide a parliamentary majority of seats. But increasingly since the 1970s - and it is still getting worse - the number of seats for third parties is racheting up. The number of safe seats is increasing. The probability of a single party getting a majority is decreasing. The ease of getting rid of a government which has failed - and replacing it with another of a different party - is reducing. Most alarmingly, the delicate balance between the two main parties has become distorted to such an extent that we can no longer have confidence that the party with the most votes will necessarily win the most seats.
The result of the general elections of 2005 and 2010 resulted, respectively, in a substantial majority for one party on the basis of a lead of 3% in the votes, and then a hung parliamant on the basis of a 7% lead. Such distortions, hung parliaments, and possibly "wrong winner" results, will only get worse in the future.
It may come to pass, some years or decades in the future, that First-Past-The-Post will collapse or reach a point of crisis, due to its own distortions and contradictions, but AV will not be the answer to the question of what should replace it. As the effective number of political parties (known to us psephological anoraks as the "Laakso-Taagepera Index") creeps upwards from 3 towards 4, and as the disproportionality and unrepresentative nature of FPTP reaches a crisis point, PR will happen eventually. Those of us who support PR (whether by STV or by AMS doesn't matter at this stage) need not cry over spilt milk at the news of the defeat of AV. In the long march of history, the AV referendum result will become increasingly irrelevant rather than disappointing.
Meanwhile, it is always advisable for politicians to keep in touch with the thoughts and concerns of the ordinary people, and to understand their concerns. Therefore, to help enhance the quality of the connection between us politicians and those whom we seek to represent, and due to popular demand, here are some of the comments written on spoilt ballot papers in the AV referendum, as observed in Croydon:
F--k Nick Clegg, His Mum, His Dad, F--k Obama, Love Osama
Bring back hanging - We bloody well need it
Neither: my preference is for PR
Without a referendum on Europe, what's the point?
Proportional Representation - Referendum on EU
Should be proportional rep.
What Democracy!?
I don't care - politicians will be bastards whatever the voting system
There will never be equality in any system; First Past the Post is best.
Get Britain out of the EU
Nick Clegg sucks
I don't care - stop screwing the NHS
PR is preferable
Where is proportional representation? Referendum should not be about navel gazing
I believe both are not useful
Neither were posited, proportional representation was the promised agenda. I protest at this false simplification.
PR 1
YES 2
NO 3
Only proportional representation
Undecided - things have to change but not sure how.
What difference does it make? We need politicians who care about people and not their votes
Will it make a difference or will we still get people we didn't vote for?
Get Britain out of the EU
None of these. This is not a real choice - what about proportional with party lists?
Deal with important issues - health, education, employment
Thank you for spending money on this!
This is a waste of time and money - I reflect the public apathy in my spoilt ballot paper. I vote for neither. Stop wasting public money.
Still better proportional representation.
Want Proportional Representation
Neither - only PR will do.