As you may have had your fill from me on the subject of AV, I will continue to do my public duty of trying to help people make an informed decision on 5 May by pointing you towards the briefing paper put out by the Political Studies Association, 'leading organisation in the UK linking academics in political science and current affairs'. The paper is by Alan Renwick of the University of Reading, who says it does not take sides in the referendum debate; its aim 'is to lay out the basic evidence upon which a well informed debate can be conducted'.
I will, for my part, just highlight this passage at p. 21 [pdf]:
There is no definite research on how a "yes" or a "no" vote in this referendum would affect the future politics of electoral reform. But the following points can inform debate on the subject.
A "no" vote in a referendum is always followed by what Professor Lawrence LeDuc calls a "battle for interpretation". Those who support the status quo argue that the people have spoken and that the issue should be left alone. Supporters of change, by contrast, argue that the referendum has not decided the issue: they might say, for example, that voters were offered the wrong reform option or that a better information campaign should have been launched.
This will happen in the event of a "no" vote in the UK too. Supporters of FPTP will say that the people have decided in favour of the status quo. Supporters of change will argue that AV was the wrong reform and that a more substantial change should be offered.
The question is, who will win this battle? Given that the issue of electoral reform has not caught the public imagination and that few voters understand the intricacies of electoral systems, it is likely to be difficult for reform supporters to convince many that another reform should now be considered. Such was the experience of reform supporters after recent referendums in three Canadian provinces: the battle of interpretation was decisively won by the supporters of the status quo.
It is clear that changing the electoral system is easier where change has already recently happened: the idea of reform is no longer so radical; more people are familiar with the reform options; there are fewer interests vested in the status quo. Four established democracies – France, Italy, Japan, and New Zealand – have introduced major reforms to their national electoral systems in the last thirty years. Two of these – France and Italy have subsequently instituted further major reforms, while Japan passed a further smaller reform, and New Zealand will hold a referendum creating the possibility of another major reform later this year.
(Via Andrew.)
