Say no to AV

By Giles Chichester, on Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Miserable distortion: “we should vote to reject it out of hand and wait for a time when there might be a real alternative system of proportional representation to debate.”

Normally voting systems are a subject of marginal interest to everyone except the anoraks of the political class. But now is not normal because we are shortly to be called upon to vote about changing our First Past the Post (FPTP) system for general elections to one called Alternative Votes (AV).

I have been amused by references in the press to differing meanings for AV; in France it could be A Vendre or for sale; elsewhere it could mean Adult Video, but for me it is best summed up by one of my favourite Winston Churchill stories.

It is said the great man encountered a young, new MP and afterwards asked what his name was. Mr Bossom, came the answer. “I see,” said Winston, “neither one thing nor the other” which is a pretty good description of the AV voting system.

This miserable distortion of our present system would give us a distinctly unfair system in which supporters of the least popular candidates could have their votes counted two or three times and lead to the perverse result of the second or third most popular candidate being elected over the head of the real winner who came first with the most votes originally.

This is neither fair nor proportional; we should vote to reject it out of hand and wait for a time when there might be a real alternative system of proportional representation to debate.

Even then I will argue strongly in favour of FPTP. I understand in the ’20s when the voting issue was debated, the AV system was strongly opposed by Churchill – and how right he was!

Come and enjoy Devon – book a hotel and get away!

Why I’ll be voting YES to AV Teignbridge Councilllor Marie Jenkins outlines why she's voting for the...
New Year, new voting system! South West in favour of AV, says new poll The people of the South West are in favour of...
Poor advertising on the ‘no’ to AV campaign is misleading and offensive The 'No' to AV campaign has been misleading [and not...

Dawlish Bloke

Martin: you can vote for only one person by putting in a 1.

Tom{ Untill 1950 some MPs were elected by AV or STV. I don't see anyone calling for N.Ireland to go back to FPTP.

share flag

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Peter

Following on from the above, under FPTP the so called "extremist votes" refered to by the NO camp (for the large part those who want to support the Greens and UKIP, less so BNP supporters) are already included among the votes of the big three.

AV will allow these tactical voters to express their first preference and the redistribution of votes to 2nd and 3rd preference will do the work of ensuring that the final winner best reflects the overall wishes of the electorate when only one candidate may be chosen.

By allowing true first preferences to be shown the AV system will be good for the political debate and better reflect the pluralistic nature of society.

FPTP distorts peoples votes by forcing them to make compromise (tactical) choices rather than backing the party they most want to win. this is made clear when one looks at votes for the Green Party: in most places between 6% and 10% at European Elections when PR is used and about 1.5% at General Elections when FPTP is used. The FPTP system means that people who want to show their support for the Green Party's policies are unable to do so. The same case can be made for UKIP. So the big three mop up these tactical votes and assume that 90% of voters back their policies, when this is simply not the case. Where's the justice in that?

Martin

What happens when you don't vote for a second or third candidate?

Tom

AV would produce mediocre governments. In FPTP, the party that gets in is the one that gets full support of the largest group of people. In AV, the party that wins would be the one that most people think is OK. The system does not support strong governments, it favours middle-of-the-road parties.

The only reason the Lib Dems want AV is because it would help them, not because it's fairer.

The fact that the parties with the least number of votes gets their second votes carried forward is testiment to this.

In other words, the voters that the least number of people agree with get additional power in the voting system.

How is this fair?

Kevin Hughes

It's quite simply untrue to say that the second or third most popular candidate can win. The election system is the way that popularity is measured. Since measuring popularity is not an exact science, the system used to measure it can affect the result.

Some people, myself included, feel that AV is a more accurate way to measure popularity and will select a candidate which better reflects the feeling of the electorate.

Yes AV is a pretty rubbish compromise. Yes I would rather be voting for a PR system. And yes, the fact that this referendum is happening, whatever the result, has probably destroyed any chance of getting a referendum on PR. But it is better than the system we have now, so vote yes.

Giles Chichester says we should vote No to AV and wait for the chance to choose between FPTP and Proportional Representation. This is the hight of hypocracy because its the Tories who are blocking a referendum on PR!

This referendum is a once in a generation chance to change the way our MPs are elected. There will be no chance to choose PR after May 5th and Chichestyer knows it.

AV is the only option on the table. It is a slight improvement on FPTP for the reasons Stuart above. Under AV the result will still be decided by the weight of voters "in the middle" and not at the extremes. Its just that everybody will be able to communicate more clearly what they really want by ranking candidates in order of preference.

I'm not letting the best be the enemy of the good and will therefore be the voting YES.

People voted Lib Dem to get keep the Tories out... and look what's happened! AV gives a dingy credibility to the sham of the Lib Dems who jumped at the chance to ditch their voters for a sniff of power.

It's hard enough to choose one person to vote for, let alone rate them in order of preference!

The Lib Dems have spent a life-time pushing for PR, that they now accept AV as the answer to the electoral ills of this country shows how they've changed.

AV is a 'dirty little compromise' pushed by a party which now embodies all that it used to fight against.

Anonymous Coward

Gary Streeter, Sep 8, 2010:

"I fear that if we moved to an AV system, we would never have an outright Conservative Government again."

http://www.garystreeter.co.uk/news/30/58/Speech-in...

Say YES to AV!

Stuart

Yet again another no2av argument that involves no actual detail or argument, just empty bluster.

At the last election, the number of people who rejected and voted against the Conservative candidate in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport was almost twice the number who voted for him - yet he won. Our current system is the loser's friend. It elected a man two-thirds of voters didn't want.

The proposed Alternative Vote elects the candidate with the most support, not the losers - like Oliver Colvile - favoured by a tiny minority.

And, yes, apparently Churchill did oppose AV. He also opposed votes for women.