AV? Yes please.

A nice, non-divisive topic for my first past the post. For those not living on the British Isles, talk of a certain upcoming wedding has no doubt drowned out any stories concerning the first ever referendum on changing the electoral system used in general elections. In case you don’t already know, the proposal is to shift from the current First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system to the Alternative Vote (or instant-runoff voting, as seemingly the rest of the world know it).

Predictably, there are well-assembled forces behind both the yes and no campaigns. Unfortunately however, the arguments for both sides are rapidly descending to the level of monkeys throwing shit at each other (albeit with more threats of getting lawyers involved).

Among all this it is difficult to discern actual arguments for and against the AV system. For some reason, both the yes and no campaign websites list only three reasons why they are correct. Let’s start by pointing out the flaws with the no arguments.

AV is costly. The change to AV will cost up to an additional £250 million. Local councils would have to waste money on costly electronic vote counting machines and expensive voter education campaigns.

No, it isn’t. As Chris Huhne has pointed out, Australia has managed to do the counting manually for eighty years. I’m sure we can just about cope. As for voter education campaigns, I can only assume they refer to teaching people how to write down the numbers 1 to 3 on a piece of paper. Is it really that difficult?

AV is complex and unfair. The winner should be the candidate that comes first, but under AV the candidate who comes second or third can actually be elected.

This argument, along with any other that says under FPTP the “majority” candidate wins, conveniently forgets that the definition of a majority is over 50% – precisely what is required under AV! The second or third candidate can only win if a majority of people want them to be elected. People don’t have to give any more than one preference, so to say that the “third” candidate is the winner is simply misleading.

AV is a politician’s fix. AV leads to more hung parliaments, backroom deals and broken promises like the Lib Dem tuition fees U-turn. Instead of the voters choosing the government, politicians would hold power.

A similar argument, one which is equally spurious, could be made by switching AV with FPTP in the above text. There is really no substance to this point.

Perhaps the biggest issue with the yes campaign is that the points they list is that they don’t point out the true benefits of AV. Such as the eradication of tactical voting. Conveniently, this point is conveniently explained in the latest video by the no campaign:

At around 3:06 one gentleman, who apparently has not actually taken part in a general election, makes the point:

The person you vote for first is gonna be the one you’re most passionate about, but then the second one’s gonna be more tactical.

Perhaps a yes campaign member snuck into the editing room to add this pro-AV point into the video. As an example, under the current system a passionate vote for your Favourite Party is prevented by you playing it safe and opting for a tactical vote for your Reluctant Preference to prevent the Party You Really Don’t Like from winning. So this gentleman would rather step over his preferred vote, and stick his cross next to the safe option, all while enjoying the bitter taste in his mouth? AV lets people vote for the smaller parties that they were too afraid to back under FPTP.

Finally, I feel I should tackle the argument that AV would allow extremest parties to gain seats. Really? I’m not entirely sure that someone whose pencil is hovering over the box next to the BNP will opt for a tactical vote – would they really see a big difference between their seat being won by the Reds or the Blues? If a person is going to vote for an extreme party they will do so under any system.

Given the choice between FPTP and AV, it’s a bit of a no-brainer. The only real difference between the systems is that under AV you actually need to get a majority to be elected. Being able to get to vote for who you really want is the cherry on top of the AV gateau. Unless you don’t like cherries of course. Or gateau. I’m afraid you’ll have to make up your own metaphor.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to AV? Yes please.

  1. Ludovic says:

    I agree with everything you’ve said but I’m still puzzled why it says on the supposedly impartial Electoral Commission leaflet (the one that was posted thru every letterbox in the country), that one of the downsides to AV is that a party without a majority may get in office. Is this just plain wrong? It seems particularly odd given the ‘impartial’ nature of the authors and that only a page beforehand they clearly explain that to win in AV you need at least 51% of the vote. I’m questioning whether we’re missing a loophole.

  2. Dongus says:

    Surely, if you have any sense, you would vote for just one candidate? If you feel strongly about your preferred candidate, then no other candidate should get a look in – ranking unloved candidate B as preference 2 is being disloyal to loved candidate A. Ranking a second (or third) candidate doesn’t get you an extra vote, so why bother?

  3. wh666 says:

    “”supposedly impartial Electoral Commission leaflet “”

    Ludovic, which large party do you think paid for that to be distributed? Google the address and see the real party backers, trying to stop AV.

    Personally, the fairest system is to abolish constituencies and implement Proportional representation. That would allow everyone ‘one’ equal vote for who they want and every persons vote would count equally, regardless of race/location.

    First past the post ignores the truly democratic notion that every vote should be equal and thanks to labours efforts to redraw boundaries, allows certain ethnic groups more voting power. Isn’t that racism? Why should I have the voting power of less than 1/2 of one vote, just because of my postcode? AV wont fully address that, but it’s an improvement.

    Also why should anyone care who someone votes for. Some may call groups like BNP extreme, but some people feel so disgrunteled by liberal attitudes they support them. What is harmful is extreme groups like United Against Fascism, which categorically tell you not to vote for certain parties. Quite ironic really, because telling someone who they should and shouldn’t vote for is fascism itself and makes UAF the very hypocrites they so strongly attack.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s