Does The Green Party Really Want AMS?

There's an interesting piece that's just been published over at the New Statesman, retrofitting the 2005 election result with various reforms to the voting system. With the Alternative Vote (AV) system currently en vogue with the Prime Minister, much of the attention given to the NS article will undoubtedly highlight the strengthening of Labour's position under this system.

From the Green Party's perspective however, I found myself wondering whether events have overtaken its long-term support for the Additional Member System (AMS). The Party has justified its position on electoral reform by highlighting the many merits of the system, which dovetails nicely with its policies on localism and engagement. These are all good reasons to support AMS, but I'm sure political expedience was also a key factor in the Party's reform agenda: it could justifiably expect to win more seats in Wesminster under AMS than under FPTP.

And superficially at least, this is a conclusion that is upheld by the Statesman's report, in which AMS is the only system through which the Green Party would have won representation in the Commons in 2005. However with Caroline Lucas now favourite to take Brighton Pavillion at the next election under FPTP, I wonder whether there isn't more to consider here. It's worth noting that under AMS in 2005, the Green Party would only have won 2 seats, the same number as the BNP and 8 fewer than UKIP. This could be damaging for the Party's image: it doesn't want to be seen as an 'extremist' party operating on the fringes of society in the same way that the BNP does. In contrast, if Lucas is able to win the Greens' first seat in the spring, they can again claim to be the fourth largest party (excluding nationalists) in the country, as they will have achieved something that not even UKIP have done (UKIP's only current MP - Bob Spink - is a Tory turncoat). It might not mirror the Party's egalitarian ideal, but being part of a more exclusive legislative body might give the Greens more political weight than being one of a number of 'minor' parties to hold more than one seat.

The caveat here, of course, is that the NS research doesn't account for how a change in the voting system might affect a change in people's voting intentions. Greens might justifiably point out that their party may attract a larger share of the vote if the electorate thought that a Green vote carried more weight under AMS than under FPTP. Reason suggests that the Party may well have suffered from tactical voting and 'wasted-vote syndrome' in the past. But unless Labour backbenchers can force a stunning change of direction in the Commons this afternoon, it seems likely that the terms of such debates as these will continue to be grounded in little more than conjecture.