David Cameron, Tory Leader Photo by World Economic Forum |
The UK, like the US, employs a first past the post voting system. This simply means that the candidate with the most votes wins. Unfortunately, it has a nasty side-effect of locking out smaller parties. For example, in the US, many people argued that a vote for Ralph Nader in the 2000 Presidential election was a vote for George Bush. First-past-the-post voting systems tend to produce stable, two-party governments and rarely allow other parties to gain a foothold.
Ed Milliband, Labour Leader Photo by Off2riorob |
In the UK papers, you find that left-leaning papers support the AV vote while right-wing papers oppose it. In fact, it appears that the only group which opposes the AV vote in the UK is the Tory party (though Labour struggles with the idea). Why? Because the AV vote may very well destroy the Tories and this would have a huge impact on the US.
UK politics is comprised of a number of parties, though their first-past-the-post system still keeps Labour and Tories firmly in power. In an AV vote system, many smaller parties will have much greater chances to make an impact. Though some claim the impact will be minimal, the reality is that once people realize that they can finally vote for who they want, rather than against who they don't want, politics in the UK could be irrevocably altered and I seriously doubt the UK love affair with the US will survive. And that's why the AV vote could have such a huge impact on the US.
The US and UK have long had what Churchill first described as a special relationship and the UK has long been keen on maintaining it. Part of the problem is simply that the UK doesn't like to think of themselves as part of Europe and thus ceding some influence over world events to a "United States of Europe". Like many countries wanting to maintain influence in world events, the UK has struggled to figure out how to remain relevant. Hence, by hanging on the coattails of the US, the UK has tried to claim themselves a strategic "bridge" between the US and Europe or, in fact, the US and the rest of the world. However, Margaret Thatcher's pro-US policies followed by wide derision of Tony Blair as being George Bush's poodle has led to the UK admitting that the "special relationship" was dead. Tired of being viewed by some as the 51st state, the UK is trying to find a new place in a new world.
Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat Leader Photo by Liberal Democrats |
So what does the AV vote do in this context? Most predict that the Tories, the major "pro-US" party, getting locked out of power in the long term. They still have plenty of business support, so they're not going away, but they're going to be limited. Also, much of the UK does not want closer ties to Europe, so it remains to be seen what will happen there, but in an AV UK, I can't imagine the Prime Minister being such a blatant poodle that he would act so strongly against public opinion again. After all, there would be no more of a Clintonesque "who else you gonna vote for?" attitude. Under the AV vote, the British people are going to get a chance to have a new voice and that voice isn't guaranteed to be singing the praises of the US.
For the US, that means that one of our closest allies may very well no longer do what we want them to, thus further isolating the US. Clearly the US can't push China around and without the UK to cajole Europe to play along, the US may find itself having less world influence. Can you imagine the last Iraq war without the UK? I seriously doubt it would have happened. The world would clearly be a far different place. Thus, if the AV referendum passes, world politics could be radically altered in the long term.
The Sino-american relationship is not adversarial. US politicians might often portray it as such ("We must beat the Chinese to the future" kind of prattle). The people of the US and the people of China are traders with each other as well as with each others. And over time we are becoming more dependent on each other. As an example, Lenovo has corporate headquarters in North Caroling, Beijing, and Singapore.
ReplyDeleteConsequently, a re-focusing from a 20th century military perspective (US-Britain) to a 21st century partnership (US-China) is certainly significant, but it's all good.
And as a bonus, politicians around the world will find their power and influence diminishing, while individuals will have more control over their own lives. Their is after all a significant difference between Americans and The US government.
Erm.... Don't forget that UK elections are run at a local constituency level ie you're not voting for a party leader or even a party, you're voting for your local MP. The MP usually associates him/herself with a party though.
ReplyDeleteWhile voters may like/dislike various aspects of the Special Relationship, I don't think it's ever really been a voting issue for the UK electorate, any more than foreign affairs has been for the US electorate.
Also, when you say "Can you imagine the last Iraq war without the UK?" - I can't imagine that that war was contingent on UK participation.
ReplyDeleteIf the UK had declined to participate, I honestly think the Bush administration would have gone ahead anyway.
For more on the proposed UK Alternative Vote, including why it may not make much of a difference due to the proposed implementation: a recent Economist article and the Google search that found it
ReplyDeletealmostwitty is right to the extent that we do elect our MPs rather than our PMs. However, candidates usually run on their party's platform to a great extent. UKIP candidates in particular do, though they are more anti-EU than they are anti-US.
ReplyDeleteAs a Pom (Brit) living in Australia this is aparticularly interesting debate. Australia believes it has a "special relationship" with the US too and has supported the US in all of the recent conflicts. Australia also wants some influence in world events, but struggles to figure out how to remain relevant. They also therefore "hang on the coat tails of the US". However, Australia has an AV system. It has recently had an election which has left a messy coalition of Labor, Greens and Independents, but it didn't stop Julia Gillard (AUS PM) kicking an Aussie football around the Oval Office the other month.
ReplyDelete