The Alternative Vote campaign was not a good advertisement for direct democracy in the United Kingdom. Truths became half-truths, and half-truths became Goebbels. The Yes campaign started with leads in the polls, but in the end was defeated by a margin of more than two to one. This has been explained as punishment directed at the Liberal Democrats for repudiating their own manifesto, a glorious endorsement of the first-past-the-post system or because Eddie Izzard isn’t very funny. But of course it’s none of these; it’s because we like tennis.
The essence of tennis scoring is to exaggerate slight differences between players, and in doing so create clear results. In 2007 Rafael Nadal defeated Roger Federer in the final of Roland Garros. This is because Rafael Nadal always defeats Roger Federer in the final of Roland Garros. In 2007, Nadal defeated Federer 6-3 4-6 6-3 6-4. Three sets to one, twenty-two games to sixteen, whatever way you look at it, a comprehensive victory. Except, only because of the electoral or rather scoring system. Break points are to tennis what marginal constituencies are to British elections. In that final, Federer earned seventeen break points to Nadal’s ten. But whilst the Spaniard converted four of his, the Swiss managed a measly one. It was as if Lord Ashcroft was funnelling winners to Nadal at those vital moments.
It may appear paradoxical to cite a match that took three days to be completed, but the same principle held when John Isner finally defeated Nicholas Mahut in the match that would not end at Wimbledon last year. The statistics bordered on the fantastical. The match lasted over eleven hours, the final set included 138 games and the IBM scoreboard broke at 47-all, which bodes well for our cyber attack defences. Isner won the match, but he did so by winning a minority of the points. Frenchman Mahut nominally ‘won’ the match 502-478. But as Federer knows all too well, not all points are worth the same. A double fault when 40-0 up matters far less than a missed drop shot at 30-40.
If you live in a marginal constituency, you are, for want of a more attractive analogy, a break point. You matter. If, however, you reside in the bluest of blue hamlets or the deep red of the northern inner cities, you are a 40-0 point. Like a low level US federal employee during a government shutdown, you are non-essential.
All of which of course means very little. This was an intellectual exercise, and not a very intellectual one at that. Tennis has a reputation in this country for being a middle class sport, played in country clubs by well to do ladies and gentlemen wearing their all-whites. Unfair or not, its scoring system means that tennis is a place where Conservative Britain meets conservative Britain.
In tennis you cannot play out the clock. You cannot take the ball to the corner flag, and you cannot kick it away. The match is over when your opponent is defeated. But the 12th Century French aristocrats that invented the sport weren’t so stupid as to conceive of a game with no time limit in a region of the world that is forever blighted by that awful faux-meteorological motif ‘scattered showers’ without fixing the scoring system first. First-past-the-post, with notable exceptions, delivers majority governments. Tennis scoring separates winners from losers despite oftentimes tiny differences. What do Nick Clegg and Nicholas Mahut have in common? Now we know.
No comments:
Post a Comment