Two votes in the last week carry lessons for Bermuda’s political parties.In Canada, voters gave Stephen Harper’s Conservative government a majority for the first time, and at the same time they demolished the once-mighty Liberal Party and elevated the New Democrats to the role of Official Opposition, largely on the back of a massive protest vote in Quebec.In Britain, voters decisively rejected the Alternative Vote, which would have watered down the first past the post system which has characterised the Westminister System for centuries.What lessons can be drawn from these events?The first is that in difficult times, voters prefer certainty.In Canada, the Conservatives argued that the difficult times facing the country required a majority government, and not the uncertainty thrown up by further minority government, which is how Canada has been ruled since 2006.In Quebec, voters apparently rejected all established parties in favour of the NDP, with the result that the Bloc Quebecois was reduced from 43 seats to three.That rejection was also seen in the humbling of the Liberals, which lost more than half its seats, including that of its Leader, Michael Ignatieff, who was seen as arrogant.In the Greater Toronto Area, a traditional Liberal stronghold, the Conservatives made big gains, largely because the Liberals were seen as taking their supporters for granted.In Britain, which is being ruled by a coalition government for the first time since 1945, the Liberal Democrats, the junior partner in the coalition, were handed a double defeat as they lost seats and control of local councils and were decisively defeated on the Alternative Vote. Both votes seems to have been punishment for the party joining the coalition and necessarily swinging to the right.But of the two, the defeat on the AV is most unfortunate, since it has killed voter reform for a decade.Here, one lesson was that negative campaigning, which the “No” vote excelled at, is effective.The other is that voters did not seem to understand what was being offered, and this is the problem with complex constitutional reform.The AV means that voters can put down a second choice of candidate in an election. If no candidate gets 50 percent of the vote, the ‘second votes’ are added in until a candidate does exceed 50 percent.This means that where there are more than two parties or candidates running, the MP can claim more legitimacy than someone who simply wins the most votes. And in theory it should help third parties, who are penalised by first past the post systems.Despite its complexity, it is unquestionably a fairer system which could reduce some of the divisiveness inherent in the Westminster system, especially in small places like Bermuda. But it seems to be clear that voters are not going to support it when they have bigger problems on their minds.It may also be that the Conservative Leader, David Cameron, won too well in backing the no vote. He may have fatally undermined the Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg, and in doing so, damaged the coalition, of which Mr Clegg is the strongest supporter.So politicians need to remember that voters dislike arrogance in their leaders and resent being taken for granted. No matter how invincible any party may seem, the voters can and will turn against it.The second lesson is that in difficult times, voters tend to seek stability and certainty. If a party fails to make clear what it stands for and what it plans to to do, it will lose.The third lesson follows that. In difficult times, voters will choose a system that offers certainty over fairness, which seems to be why British voters rejected the Alternative Vote.