Having three options on the ballot paper is even more complicated than it soundsby Peter Kellner / July 16, 2018 / Leave a comment
Justine Greening has come out in favour of a People’s Vote—but with a twist. Instead of a binary choice—say, compromise deal versus no Brexit—she wants voters to judge three options: no Brexit, compromise or hard Brexit.
It would certainly be novel. Other countries have occasionally held multi-choice referendums; but these have generally been first-past-the post choices, such as when Australia picked Advance Australia Fair as its national song in 1977. What Greening wants is for voters to give their first and second choices. If none of the options wins 50 per cent support, the least popular option would be eliminated, and the second choices of its supporters counted.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong in constitutional innovation. However, Greening’s proposal raises an important question of democratic choice when more than two options are on the table. In short, how do we measure which is most popular when none of the options wins 50 per cent of first preference votes?
Here is one scenario. It is emphatically not a prediction but it is, I believe, plausible. Suppose this is how the UK votes in a Greening referendum
No Brexit: 38 per cent (Second preferences: Compromise 30 per cent, Hard Brexit 8 per cent)
Compromise deal: 30 per cent (Second preferences: Hard Brexit 20 per cent, No Brexit 10 per cent)
Hard Brexit: 32 per cent (Second preferences: Compromise 25 per cent, No Brexit 7 per cent)