What are some of the real reasons there was a turnout of only 42%? And out of that turnout what are some of the possible reasons only 32% voted yes?
Whatever way you cut it, there wasn’t exactly a great appetite for the idea of replacing the current system with the alternative vote. That much is clearly obvious. The decision was made loud and clear not to change the current system; the percentage of voter turnout is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. If there had been a great interest to effect political change, then the issue wouldn’t have faded into the background. Who the feck’s jumping up and down about it now? The LibDems? Labour?
The only places with higher than 50% ‘Yes” in that referendum were six in London, then parts of Cambridge, Oxford, Edinburgh and Glasgow. What does that tell you? (Ironically, the SNP has done quite well out of the current system, so perhaps Edinburgh and Glasgow made a ‘mistake’ wanting change. As it is now with much less support than UKIP, the SNP punch well above their weight.)
All of this brings me to one of the main reasons why electoral reform even made it to a referendum: in 2005 Labour won the election with the lowest ever share of the national vote for a single-party majority government in history. That dubious distinction belongs well and truly to Labour, even ‘New’ Labour at that. That’s a significant point and explains why the 2011 Referendum gained momentum. Of course, it was actually Labour, back in 1997, that proposed changes to the current system.
Nothing takes away from the fact that the Conservatives and Labour will still dominate any other political, electoral system on a nation-wide basis until there is a real credible alternative. The Conservatives would have done even better in some previous elections under PR. If the point is that PR would destabilise the strength of the two main parties, then the jury’s clearly out on that one. Voter apathy is a significant problem throughout Western democracies.
Rather than trying to blame the current system for political failure, why not put the blame where it really belongs: on the apathy of the voters who don’t strive to make change a reality.
It’s easy to play the blame game, but real change comes from being active and doing something about it. The SNP turned a minority, outside-the-mainstream political philosophy into a powerhouse at the expense of Labour, simply because they stopped moaning about a Conservative/Labour dominated political landscape.
The point is: it can be done.
So, we have the SNP becoming a substantial political force at the expense of Labour and they now have significant political representation in London, as a consequence of the current political and electoral system. Obviously, Alex Salmond prefers real politics to armchair politics.
