On 5 May the UK will go to the polls for our first nationwide referendum for 36 years. We are being asked whether we want to get rid of our current voting system (sometimes referred to as ‘First Past the Post’) and replace it with a different system called the ‘Alternative Vote’ (AV).
This referendum is being held because it was one of the things Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats demanded in return for their part in forming the coalition government. The Lib Dems will be campaigning for a ‘Yes’ vote in the referendum and a change to AV – while the Conservatives, along with over 100 Labour MPs, hundreds of Labour councillors, and a number of trade unions, are backing the cross-party campaign for a ‘No’ vote to keep our current system. Here are some of the reasons why:
- AV is unfair. For generations, our elections are based on the fundamental principle of ‘One Person, One Vote.’ AV would undermine that, allowing the supporters of fringe or extremist parties to have their vote counted five or six times – and potentially decide the outcome of the election – while people who backed the mainstream candidates only get one vote.
- AV is unwanted. Even the Yes campaigners don’t really want AV. Before the general election, Nick Clegg described AV as ‘a miserable little compromise’. Another senior Lib Dem, Chris Huhne, said that ‘it does not give voters real power’. Now they want it because it will help their party hold the balance of power.
- AV is obscure. Only three countries in the world use AV for their national elections: Fiji, Australia, and Papua New Guinea. Fiji have plans to get rid of it, and in Australia, 6 out of 10 voters want to return to the British system.
- AV is expensive. Holding this referendum is costing the country £90 million, and AV itself would make elections more expensive. Counting the votes would take much longer, either by hand or on costly new electronic counting machines – and local taxpayers would end up footing the bill.
As a case in point if last year’s general election had been held under AV, there would have been at least four rounds of counting before one candidate got over 50% of the vote in the Greenwich & Woolwich constituency.
That means the 65 voters who voted for the least popular candidate would have had at least 4 votes, and the 267 people who voted for the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition candidate would have had at least 3 votes.
But the 9 out of 10 mainstream voters who voted for the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat candidates would have had their votes counted just once.
Please vote to defend our system of One Person, One vote, by voting ‘No’ on 5 May.
Alex Wilson is a councillor representing the Blackheath Westcombe ward and has been selected as the Conservative’s London Assembly candidate for Greenwich and Lewisham.
AV is unfair – so is FPTP – under FPTP candidates can be elected with a minority vote.
If AV would benefit extremism why are the BNP supporting No To AV.
Votes dont get counted more than once, if your choice loses, your vote is transferred to your next preference.
AV is unwanted – thats for the people to decide – thats why we’re having a referendum
AV is obscure – so is world peace and a cure for cancer – I dont get this argument. Being obscure does not mean something is bad.
AV is expensive – um no it isnt, in Australia there are no expensive counting machines. The cost of the Referendum would be there whatever voting system we choose.
Also if last years election was held under AV PEOPLE WOULD HAVE VOTED DIFFERENTLY.
AV is obscure – really? You’re still pressing this line? I’m with Ian that’s obscurity should be no barrier, but it’s not even true – the Mayor of London and London Assembly have been elected under AV since they were reinstated, and I don’t recall that being controversial. Or is the No campaign saying that should go too?
The BNP does better under 1st past the post (Barking and Dagenham council) than under AV (1 London Assembly member). That’s why it is supporting the no campaign. By your logic, that means the No vote is promoting extremism and standing shoulder to shoulder with the BNP.
That said, thanks for helping me make up my mind how to vote.
Everybody gets the same vote under AV. AV is a run-off system. Everyone votes for their first preference. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. The votes are totted up again – but this time those who voted for the eliminated candidate have their votes assigned to their second preference.
This keeps going until one candidate is left – her or she will be the one who has the support of at least 50% of voters.
It’s the same system used to elect party leaders. Cameron was elected under a similar system (the only difference is that, with AV, you put all your preferences down at the start). Cameron lost the first round to David Davies, but came through in later rounds because he picked up the second preference votes from other candidates.
The reason AV is used to elect political leaders and elsewhere is that it’s widely acknowledged to give a fairer, more representative result. Under FPTP, candidates can scrape through even though most voters don’t want them. That can’t happen under AV.
I am voting yes because
1. You can vote only for your first preference and no others.
2. If this referendum about AV goes the no-to-AV way, we can wave good-bye to any more electoral reform for the next 100 years because history will be rewritten: the winners will spin the result as the people having said “no to Proportional Representation”, you’ll see.
I don’t understand why we are not being asked two questions, ie for/against AV and for/against PR. Terrible waste of an opportunity.
I am Australian.
Your statement that 6 out of 10 of us want to get rid of the system is WRONG. One survey (1!) in the last 40 years showed people might prefer FPTP. That survey gave people a choice between non-compulsory FPTP or compulsory full preferential voting (not AV). Many Australians would like to change compulsory voting (not preferential voting) and this explains the result of that ONE poll.
AV is one person one vote. Each person’s vote counts the same. It is simply a series of elections where one person is eliminated each time. I each round each vote is counted only once. If every person’s vote wasn’t counted in each round then the leading candidate after round one would have almost no votes in the next.
Stop misrepresenting our electoral system!
Alex. Did you write this article? There is a very similar one at this address:
http://www.hearfromyourmp.com/view/message/1198
I’m undecided on my vote, but trying to find out more. Where does the 6 out of 10 figure for Australia come from, because that seems to be the most solid argument I’ve seen either way,
Ta
Yay, @Bruce the Australian – I love the t’Interweb, it has completely changed “democracy” – and makes it much harder for people to b*llsh*t about other countries’ electoral systems and pass off other people’s work as their own.
Here is a link to a very reputable blog that dismisses the idea that 6 out of 10 Australians want rid of AV – http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/02/do-australians-really-want-to-abandon-the-alternative-vote.html
A plagiarized article? Would we expect anything else from the No Campaign? It’s funny because I keep reading the same old myths, fallacies and blatant lies.
AV is still in essence one person one vote. Your 2nd, 3rd and 4th preferences are not “extra” votes. If you think some votes are counted more than others you either don’t understand how AV works or you are deliberately spreading misinformation.
AV is so obscure it is the same system used to tally up the scores in that little known entertainment shindig known as “the Oscars”. Too lightweight? Okay, how about the same system used by the House of Lords too elect replacements for deceased hereditary peers. Yep, that’s right, AV is already used in parliament. Must be so terrible for them to have such a dreadful voting system that they, erm, presumably chose themselves. Strange.
The No campaign is yet to show us the working out as to how AV “will make elections more expensive” or any cite any evidence for the even more spurious claim that we will need “costly new electronic counting machines”.
I am voting YES to AV because it requires an MP to secure the majority of votes cast, thanks to preference voting.
At present, an MP can be elected on 40% of the popular vote because s/he got more votes than the other candidates did individually.
This ignores 60% of the electorate who did not want him/her as their MP. They just have to lump it.
To hell with 60% of voters ? Is that fair ? NO.
If only to stop this nonsense of Safe Seats or Seats for Life. Make your MP work for US not just themselves. Vote YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
AV uses pencil and paper, and human counters. How is that expensive?
AV requires the winner to have the backing of the majority of voters. HOW is that unfair compared to a system where the winner usually are opposed by the majority?
AV is wanted, otherwise why is the vote so tight?
AV is obscure? FPTP is a dying system, many countries change to new systems, vastly more than any that move to FPTP.
I wish people would stop lying, and others would stop blindly believing it. We have Google now. People should look it up, they’ll be pleasently surprised (or infuriatingly, due to such barefaced cheek of the lies)