It goes without saying that this blog supports AV - as a step on the road to full PR (STV will do, I think) - if only because it will piss off the Tory right so very badly that they might implode. For those of you in need of arguments for your right wing family and friends, this article in the Indie on Sunday has the best round-up.
Click the link for the full thing. Excerpt below:
With only 18 days to go, and volatile polls suggesting the outcome is far from certain, both sides in the debate about changing the voting system have stepped up the rhetoric. On 5 May, voters across the UK will decide whether to replace first past the post with the Alternative Vote to elect MPs to Parliament. It would mean instead of putting a cross next to one name, voters would rank candidates in order of preference. Low-scoring candidates would be eliminated and their second and, later, third preferences redistributed until the winner had secured more than 50 per cent of votes cast. Those who favour keeping first past the post have made numerous claims about the failings of AV. But are they true? From sporting metaphors to whether we should listen to Winston Churchill, here are some myths explained and propaganda unravelled.
1. “The AV referendum on 5 May is going to cost the taxpayer up to £250m.” Andrew Bridgen, MP for North-west Leicestershire, Daily Mail, 14 April
Staging the referendum will cost about £80m, which would have been more if it had not been held on the same day as the local elections. That cost will be felt regardless of the outcome. Opponents of AV say £130m will need to be spent on electronic counting machines – but they are not needed and are not used in AV elections in Australia.
2. “The alternative vote is so complicated that it will put people off voting.”
James Cracknell, Olympic rower, 14 April
Most people can count beyond the number one. A lot of people go into the polling booth having thought tactically about whom to support. Under AV, voters can rank the candidates in order of preference, without having to sideline their preferred party “because they can’t win here”.
3. “In sport, as in elections, you have a winner and a loser.”
David Gower, cricketer, The Sun, 14 April
Except when it’s a draw, obviously. And you would still have a winner under AV, except they would have to gain the support of half the voters. Sporting metaphors and politics don’t mix, particularly when describing electoral reform as a “googly”.
4. “If the last election had been under AV, there would be the chance, right now, that Gordon Brown would still be Prime Minister.”
David Cameron, speech, 18 February
Unlikely. Even if the result had been closer and a Lib-Lab coalition had been mathematically possible, the Lib Dems would have been forced to choose. Nick Clegg had made clear that Brown would have to fall on his sword. The only recent election that might have had a different result was 1992, which might have been a hung parliament instead of a Tory majority of 21.
5. “Here in Britain, we have a clear, decisive and effective system.”
Lord Howard, BBC The Daily Politics, 5 April
Except that first past the post gave us a hung parliament last year. All the doom and gloom warnings – yes, Mr Cameron, we mean you – have not turned out to be true. It is claimed AV will lead to more hung parliaments but Australia had a hung parliament last year for the first time in 100 years. There have been more in Britain in the same period.
For those of you who want to know why this is such a stitch up - try here for a particularly astute round-up of the nonsense of it all:
Let me start by saying that I’m not defending the No2AV campaign. And I am certainly not defending the Yes To Fairer Votes campaign. On this particular issue, I am apathetic and ambivalent to such extreme lengths I feel like a hipster trying to avoid chart music.
I know that No2AV have released a stupid advert which thinks the British public are borderline brain damaged en masse when it comes to understanding voting systems. And I have also heard criticism levelled at them for only trying to derail the Yes To Fairer Votes campaign and not attempting to promote First Past The Post.
The reason for this is that it is not a referendum on whether we prefer AV or FPTP. It is not a referendum, as promised, on whether we would like more proportional representation within our parliament. The wording of the question on the ballot is “should the UK switch to AV?” (Incidentally, research by the British Election Study showed that the wording of the question greatly affected whether people answered yes or no to AV). In a word, NO. But once I have answered that bit, the rest of taken out of my hands. Of course we shouldn’t switch to AV. It’s often less proportional, it shows barely altered results for the last few general elections (apart from meaning that Blair’s majority in 1997 would have been well over 200), and it vastly favours centrist parties who are more likely to get second and third preference votes from the majority of voters.
If we answer yes, they will begrudgingly switch to what is basically FPTP with numbers, barely more proportional and literally nobody’s first choice of electoral system, and that will be it for another fucking hundred years. If we answer no, we wouldn’t like to switch to AV, the government think that is an endorsement of FPTP and we must be more than happy to continue as we are.
FPTP is a fucking horrible electoral system. It disenfranchises vast areas of the country, it makes our parliament a laughable example of representative democracy, it encourages the most hideous politicians to remain in their seats for decades (I am looking at you very specifically, Sir Stuart Bell, you absolutely disgusting example of an MP).
The Voter Power Index website is actually saying we should be switching to AV because some areas (specifically the safe seat areas in the North) will have 35% MORE POWER! WOO 35% THAT SOUNDS LIKE LOADS! This 35% increase in voter power refers to a vote now being worth 0.006 of one vote, where before it was worth 0.005. NOW THERE’S A REASON TO SWITCH TO AV, FINALLY I WILL BE HEARD 0.001 MORE THAN I WAS HEARD BEFORE!
If this were a real referendum, I’d be being asked “Would you like to see the UK electoral system changed; yes or no?” and then a further referendum to decide from ALL the systems, which would be suitable and desired by the British public.
I honestly don’t know what I’m going to vote. I’m so fucking disilusioned I could cry about it. I am moments away from decising to try and get away with drawing a willy with an arrow pointing to it saying “Nick Clegg” but I don’t think that really covers the level of betrayal that we’ve all suffered at the hands of the Liberal Democrats.
The most basic of all political rules applies to the UK government. If it would really make a difference, they wouldn’t let you vote on it.
All the Yes campaigners have got it wrong. It’s not the No2AV lot who think you’re stupid. It’s the government.
