WI:In 1930, the Labour Government managed to push through its AV Bill.

As the title states, what if Labour managed to push through a bill promoting the Alternate Vote in 1930. How would this have changed Britain going forward?
 

Thande

Donor
I can't see it being terribly popular at first - you've got all these people who have only just been given the vote, they're going to be suspicious of you changing the voting system.

I also don't see why Labour would favour AV, since my instinct would be that there would be lots of Tory voters who would vote Liberal as second preference to keep Labour out of a given seat. Although I suppose at this point you might have the Liberals and Labour putting each other as second preference and that might lock the Tories out.

In either case, the Liberals probably undergo something of a revival from second preference votes.
 
The following information and quotations are taken from The Electoral System in Britain 1918-1951 by D.E. Butler, Oxford University Press, 1953.

The Representation of the People (No.2) Bill provided for the introduction of the alternative vote for parliamentary elections, the division of two-member constituencies, and the abolition of university seats and the business vote, though the City of London would be exempt from the abolition of the business vote. There were also provisions restricting the use of cars on polling day and reducing election expenses.

The House of Commons debated the second reading debate on 24 February 1931. Only one Labour member expressed unqualified support for the alternative vote. "Several Labour members expressed doubts about it or even open hostility." The Conservative case against the Bill was put by Sir Samuel Hoare. "The alternative vote was bad in principle and had always proved unsatisfactory in practice." "The Liberals who spoke all regretted the absence of P.R. from the Bill but welcomed the alternative vote as a great improvement of the existing syatem."

"The Bill received a second reading by 295 votes to 230 on a strict party division." Labour and Liberals voting for, Conservatives voting against.

The committee stage of the Bill commenced on 4 March. In the debate on the Conservative motion to reject the clause introducing the alternative vote, "the convinced defenders of the alternative vote were very few". The clause was carried by 277 votes to 253. "Despite the whips, 11 Labour and 2 Liberals voted against it and 27 Labour members were absent unpaired."

On 2 June 1931 the Bill received a third reading by 278 votes to 228. In the third reading debate Winston Churchill, "who had hitherto been silent on the Bill, intervened with a vehement demand for proportional representation in the large cities[...] The alternative vote was the child of fraud and the parent of folly".

The House of Lords gave the Bill a second reading by 50 votes to 14. In the committee stage an amendment to limit the application of the alternative vote to constituencies in boroughs which had a population of more than 200,000, was passed by 80 votes to 29. "One hundred and seventy-four constituencies fell into this category."

The Bill received its third reading in the House of Lords on 21 July 1931 and was returned to the Commons.

"Some weeks remained before the recess, but the Government decided not to consider the Lords' amendments until the autumn. There was no intention of abandoning it. [...] In August the Government fell and no more was heard about the Bill in public, though privately Sir Herbert Samuel, now Home Secretary, pressed Mr. MacDonald to pass it before going to the country in October; he received a somewhat unsympathetic negative."
 
If AV were kept a couple of things are possible.

1) It would have been possible for the elements of the 'national government' to compete but support each other. I do not now how much differnce this would make

2) The Liberal vote in the 40s and 50s might have been significantly higher. Liberals were heavily squeezed by tories saying they would let Labour in. This would not have applied
 
OK, the only objection I have to the bill is the abolition of the university seats - if there was a way to maintain them, then that would be okay. After all, the university seats could have some use - yes, it was for university graduates at first, but maybe eventually it could evolve into a system of "at-large" seats for the Commons, i.e. AV+ or New Zealand's/Scotland's MMP system's regional list seats. Other than that, it actually sounds OK. Which was the bill that recommended a split between IRV and STV for constituencies - was it this one?
 
Originally posted by Dan1988
Which was the bill which recommended a split between IRV and STV for constituencies

I don't know if any did, but the Speaker's Conference on electoral reform which was established in August 1916 and reported in January 1917 unanimously recommended STV. Its recommendations were embodied in the Representation of the People Bill 1917.

In the committee stage of the Bill the House of Commons rejected STV by 32 votes, but voted for IRV (the alternative vote, AV) by 127 votes to 126. The House of Lords substituted STV for AV. The House of Commons rejected the Lords' amendment by 223 votes to 113 and then by 178 votes to 170 reinstated AV. The Lords insisted on their amendments, but retreated from STV for all seats to only some. The Commons again rejected STV (by 238 to 141) and by 195 votes to 194 insisted on AV. Finally a compromise was arranged whereby the Boundary Commissioners were instructed to prepare a limited scheme of STV to apply to 100 seats.

When the Boundary Commission produced the scheme, it was rejected by the House of Commons. Hardly any members in the areas affected by it supported it.

However STV was accepted for the two- and three-membered university constituencies.

The above information is taken from The Electoral System in Britain 1918-1951 by D.E. Butler.
 
Wasn't it AV rurally and STV for urban seats.
The Lib-Lab coalition introduced it several times, got it through th Commons, saw it voted down in the Lords, and collapsed.
You just have to have them last long enough to use the Parliament Act, basically.
 
Top