Elections cost money. The more votes that are counted, the more the election costs. But true democrats believe that these costs are a price worth paying for the people to have their say. The 2005 general election cost more than £80 million to organise,1 and last year's election will have cost even more.
The no-to-AV campaign have been rightly ridiculed for their adverts implying that May's referendum is a straight choice between reforming the voting system and a new cardiac facility at your local hospital (as it happens, the Government's current preference is to close Southampton's cardiac facility despite it being second best for quality and survival rates in the country, regardless of the outcome in May - but that's another issue), or a straight choice between reforming the voting system and bulletproof vests for our soldiers. As the New Statesman pointed out back in February, and Charlie Brooker reiterated on last week's 10 o'clock Live, the conclusion of this "you can't have both" approach is also that there's a straight choice between the cardiac facility and the bulletproof vests - or the subjects of the other idiotic no-to-AV adverts.
The point these utterly stupid adverts are trying to make is that the alternative vote system costs more to administer than the first-past-the-post system. Well, yes it does (possibly the only correct assertion that the no-to-AV campaign has made) - in much the same way that elections suddenly cost a bit more about a century ago, when women were allowed vote. The fact that it cost more did not mean it was the wrong thing to do then, and the same applies now. Under AV, every vote counts towards the final result; under FPTP, that does not happen. In a true democracy, every voter's opinion should matter, and it's worth an election costing slightly more to ensure that it does.
1BBC News Election 2010: FAQ
