I have commented on the Alternative Voting system propose for the UK before, but the “No” campaign stuck a leaflet through my door with some mind boggling rubbish on. So I’ll go through some of their rubbish here …
The very first thing the leaflet goes on about is just how much AV is going to cost – supposedly £250 million. I am not sure I trust their figures especially when they point out that the cost of the referendum itself is £91 million. Who is to say that this £91 million cost does not also include some of the cost of the local elections ? And they quote £130 million for the cost of electronic voting machines – who is to say that this expenditure was not planned anyway ? It may be required for AV, but it is also a way of getting the results much quicker and so would be useful under the existing system.
The “No” sayers go through a long list of things that £250 million could pay for if it was not spent on AV – 2,503 doctors, 6,297 teachers, etc. Really ? Is that per year or for all time ? And what does it matter anyway ? The other way at looking at it, is how much does this £250 million really cost us … £3.57 per person. Is that too much for a fairer voting system ?
Ok, some of you do not believe that AV is fairer, but ignore that for a moment … is it worth the cost of a slightly expensive pint of beer to make our current voting system fairer ? Of course it is.
The next thing the negative ones try to make a point out of is that “The winner should be the one that comes first”. Below this they show four men running a race. This is probably the most ridiculous comparison it is possible to make. First of all, an election is not about winning (except for the putrid politicians), but about choosing a representative to parliament (in the case we’re talking about anyway). The whole point of the electoral system is to select a candidate that best represents the interests of the people in the constituency.
The whole point of the AV system is to allow a greater chance that the representative of the people is supported by at least 50% of the constituents. Under the first past the post system, it is quite common for the elected candidate to gather so few votes that he or she is opposed by the majority of those who voted. How can such a candidate be a good representative ? To return to sport for a moment, there are plenty of sports where you have to achieve a significant margin of victory over your opponent – take tennis for example.
Even in simple races, it isn’t always the winner of a single race that wins in the end – a winner in a heat may be beaten in the final race. And even in that final race, it isn’t just the winner who is rewarded as second and third place also get a prize – admittedly this would mean three MPs for each constituency. Not such a bad idea and there’s even a historical precedence behind it as some constituencies before the 1832 Reform Act elected more than one representative.
Inside the leaflet those who prefer the status quo have compared the two voting systems with the intention of making the AV system seem as complex as possible, with the AV system explained in language that looks like it was written by a lawyer – which will result in a reflex “No thanks” reaction from most of us. But AV really is not that complex at all; it certainly is not as complex as the naysayers would have you believe.
They make a big song and dance about the fact that this AV system means an end to “one person, one vote”. And how the voters for minority parties get more votes than those who choose more popular parties. Well you could describe AV as being a system in which everyone has more than one chance to pick their choice of candidate. That is everyone – so everyone has just as many votes as anyone else.
And I would say that it is still one person, one vote, but the person has a chance to transfer their vote if the most popular candidate fails to get more than 50% of the votes cast.
Another sneaky thing they have done, is to imply that anyone voting for a minor party is going to be some kind of knuckle-dragging extremist – the leaflet specifically mentions the BNP. There are a large number of minor parties that under the current system, or even under AV are exceptionally unlikely to get a candidate elected. However it is deceitful in the extreme to claim that all supporters of minor parties are extremists – what about the Green Party, Respect Party (perhaps a little towards the extreme), Libertarian Party, Wessex Regionalist Party?
In fact a system that encourages voting for minority parties allows for more information on the policies that the people want – we can all vote for the Wessex Regionalist Party to get across the message that perhaps we want a Labour MP, but actually we would like people to consider the option to make Wessex independent.
Lastly, the leaflet plays to the anti-Nick Clegg feeling around in the country by claiming that the only party to benefit would be the Liberals under Nick Clegg and it would lead to “broken promises”. Frankly this all just too much for coherent criticism – they are campaigning on a serious issue by making pathetic political point scoring.