> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.opendemocracy.net/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # On the Alternative Vote, who speaks for history? - URL: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/on-alternative-vote-who-speaks-for-history/ - Published: 2011-03-18T11:03:33.000Z - Updated: 2026-04-22T09:50:21.000Z - Description: After a provocative letter telling Times readers that 'history teaches us to vote no to AV', a response was coordinated by other historians who together cried 'not in my name'. The two letters are reproduced here along with commentary by Daniel-Joseph MacArthur-Seal, who helped organise the respon - Author: Daniel-Joseph MacArthur-Seal - Tags: Europe, #Migrated, Politics & activism, United Kingdom, Referendum Plus, Students and Higher Education, UK, Democracy and government, ideas, Democratic Reform, #en, #Import 2026-04-09 15:45, #ImagesUploaded, #appended-excerpt A week ago, a group of historians wrote a letter to *the Times* urging the public to take heed of the sacrifices of past generations in the name of democracy and vote no to AV. You can read the letter below. I found the argument provocative but unconvincing, as a supporter of AV (though like many it’s not my ideal) and particularly as a student of history. It hit a nerve that has been irritated for some time. The few historians who have crossed into the mainstream, via TV, topselling books and regular political commentary (principally Niall Ferguson, David Starkey and Simon Schama), are treated by politicians, the media and, some fear, perceived by the public as the voice of all history. Why, seemingly, is Starkey the only historian invited on to BBC Question Time/Any Questions, Schama the only [confirmed](http://www.michaelgove.com/content/education%5Fquestions%5F1?ref=opendemocracy.net) adviser to Education Secretary Michael Gove, Ferguson our [spokesperson](http://www.newsweek.com/2011/03/13/how-to-get-gaddafi.html?ref=opendemocracy.net) on the Arab revolutions? No doubt such sentiment is at times motivated by jealousy and the catty rivalries of academia. It is most likely impossible to thrust a handful of figures into the media spotlight while maintaining consensus backstage or in a way that is at all representative: not least because there are very few subjects, if not personalities, that seem to be able to attract a major audience. But there is a genuine cause for concern when the public voices of history are unrepresentative of so many in the field and fail to be acknowledged as such. It was particularly surprising to see the name Richard J Evans, my some-time teacher, signed below. Evans had just [written for the LRB](http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n06/richard-j-evans/the-wonderfulness-of-us?ref=opendemocracy.net) in condemnation of Niall Ferguson (now his co-signatory) and [Better History’s proposals \[pdf\]](http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/ca/digitalAssets/187275%5FBetter%5FHistory%5Freport.pdf?ref=opendemocracy.net) for history education. There, he criticises the demand for a ‘celebratory history’ that turns on what Simon Schama (not a signatory) is quoted as calling ‘the uncritical genealogy of the Wonderfulness of Us’. But this was exactly the tone of the letter which Evans then put his name to; praising a mythologised parliamentary democracy and its centuries-old lineage while hailing Winston Churchill and its defenders against a threat implied to be without parallel since the fall of the Third Reich - yes, the alternative vote. The letter’s narrative gives little sense of the ‘critical engagement’ Evans wants to characterise history teaching in England. Instead, it is an example of how experts attempt to feed the public their personal interpretation of historic fact, hoping the aura of their intellect, status and, in some cases, celebrity will win our passive consent. The object of our response, published in *the Times* today and reproduced here, is to show that history and historians are not one block legion to be commanded by he (the No to AV signatories were unfortunately almost all he-s) with the loudest voice. We did not intend to act as a counterpart to last week’s group and claim that in fact history teaches us to vote yes to AV, or to institute any specific voting system. Signatories will have their own views on which way to vote on 5 May and why, as some have [recorded](http://www.historyandpolicy.org/opinion/opinion%5F37.html?ref=opendemocracy.net). Rather, we wanted to remind people (most of whom probably don’t need reminding) that no-one speaks for the force of history, and to take individuals’ arguments on their merits, not on their allusions to the canon of what Michael Gove sees as our glorious '[island story](http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2010/10/Michael%5FGove%5FAll%5Fpupils%5Fwill%5Flearn%5Four%5Fisland%5Fstory.aspx?ref=opendemocracy.net)'. If precedent serves as any guide, then as we near the 5th of May the debate will get a whole lot [nastier](http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/anthony-barnett/uk-election-who-do-fleet-street-think-they-are) and we will have to be increasingly vigilent of grand claims about a change that while sorely needed is far from revolutionary. This is our letter: *Twenty-five historians, coordinated by Conservative MP Chris Skidmore, have written to the Times,* [*claiming*](http://www.conservatives.com/News/News%5Fstories/2011/03/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/Historians%20against%20AV.ashx?ref=opendemocracy.net) *that AV would be a betrayal of the sacrifice of past generations of democracy campaigners. But claiming to speak for the dead on a referendum they never contemplated seems to us a betrayal of academic standards that we as historians hold dear.* They claim to speak for historians, indeed for history, in defending FPTP. But as on any such serious political question, historians are as divided as the population at large. The notion that “[History teaches us to vote ‘No to AV’](http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article2941998.ece?ref=opendemocracy.net)”, as *the Times* headline put it, or that it gives any such clear lesson on the rightful configuration of the voting system again leads us to question the signatories’ scholarly acumen in supporting this petition. Invoking the spirit of Winston Churchill on account of his 1931 objection to AV is a cheap bid for public resonance and bad use of historic example. His opposition to votes for women and to the introduction of direct elections in India make him a poor guide to future voting systems. It is misleading to claim that under AV one citizen’s vote could be “worth six times that of another”. Instant run-off voting, of which AV is a form, retains the equal vote which the signatories of the *Times* letter fear is under threat. Further research would have shown that its compatibility with the principle of voter equality has already been tested in court in the US, where it was found that “[no voter is given greater weight in his or her vote over the vote of another voter](http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/13996?ref=opendemocracy.net)”. 1\. Dr Joan Allen 2\. Philip Begley 3\. Jane Berney 4\. Professor Stefan Berger 5\. Dr Lawrence Black 6\. Professor Huw Bowe 7\. Dr Kate Bradley 8\. Professor Christine Carpenter 9\. Professor David Cesarani 10\. Dr Elaine Chalus 11\. Professor Peter Clarke 12\. Dr Tim Cooper 13\. Dr Surekha Davies 14\. Dr Lucy Delap 15\. Professor Richard Drayton 16\. Dr Amy Erickson 17\. [Dr Martin Farr](http://www.ncl.ac.uk/historical/staff/profile/martin.farr?ref=opendemocracy.net) 18\. Professor Steven Fielding 19\. Matthew Francis 20\. Dr. Penelope Goodman 21\. Dr. Francis Graham-Dixon 22\. Dr Matthew Grant 23\. Dr Simon Griffiths 24\. Dr Joanna de Groot 25\. Dr David Hall-Matthews 26\. Professor Edward Higgs 27\. Professor Matthew Hilton 28\. Dr Katherine Holden 29\. Professor Geoffrey Hosking 30\. Andrew Jarvis 31\. Dr Michael Jennings 32\. Dr Martin Johnes 33\. Dr Jenny Keating 34\. Dr Charles Littleton 35\. Dr Peter Lyth 36\. Daniel-Joseph MacArthur-Seal 37\. Dr James Mark 38\. Clare Mulley 39\. Dr Scott Newton 40\. Dr Lucy Noakes 41\. Dr Nicola Phillips 42\. Professor Geoffrey Plank 43\. Dr Martin Polley 44\. Professor Bernard Porter 45\. Dr Virginia Preston 46\. Dr Alejandro Quiroga 47\. Dr Pedro Ramos Pinto 48\. Dr Tim Rees 49\. Dr Alastair Reid 50\. Dr James Renton 51\. Dr Sarah Richardson 52\. Dr Mark Roodhouse 53\. Dr Dominic Sandbrook 54\. Dr John Seed 55\. Dr Peter Shapel 56\. Dr Sally Sheard 57\. Dr Virginia Smith 58\. Dr Naomi Standen 59\. Professor Simon Szreter 60\. Professor Pat Thane 61\. Professor Jim Tomlinson 62\. Professor Richard Toye 63\. Professor Frank Trentmann 64\. Professor Jeffrey Weeks 65\. Professor Noel Whiteside 66**.** Dr Troy Whitford 67\. Dr Chris A Williams 68\. Dr Angus J L Winchester 69\. Professor Ina Zweiniger-Bargielowska ![image.png](https://www.opendemocracy.net/content/files/2026/04/image_0KHEtIv-1776326675918.png) image.png If you are a practicing historian and want to add your name, please email After a provocative letter telling Times readers that 'history teaches us to vote no to AV', a response was coordinated by other historians who together cried 'not in my name'. The two letters are reproduced here along with commentary by Daniel-Joseph MacArthur-Seal, who helped organise the response, on the feeling among historians.