Next week's referendum on the UK's voting system is really important; it's vital that we get rid of the ridiculous First Past The Post (FPTP) system and replace it with something fairer, like the Alternative Vote (AV). Sadly though both sets of campaign teams are letting us all down. The "no" camp are slinging naked lies and misinformation around the place, which a lot of people are apparently being taken in by, while the "yes" camp keep harping on about how AV would "make MPs work harder" - which is a pretty poor thing to latch onto given there are much better reasons for voting AV.
So here I hope to dispel some of the myths that the "no" camp are spreading around, as well as give some better reasons to vote AV.
Myth #1: Hung parliaments and coalition governments are more likely with AV than FPTP
Australia has been using AV for over 80 years. During that time we have had more hung parliaments in the UK, using FPTP, than in Australia have had with AV.
Myth #2: Switching to AV would require hundreds of thousands of pounds of investment in vote-counting machines
There are no plans to introduce vote counting machines if the country says yes to AV. In Australia, votes are counted by hand and the system works.
Myth #3: AV goes against the principle of one person, one vote
On the contrary, AV upholds this principle better than FPTP does. With AV every voter's vote counts exactly once towards the result of the election; there are no wasted votes. With FPTP, any vote that isn't for the biggest two or three parties doesn't affect the outcome and is wasted.
In an AV election, if your first-choice candidate is eliminated your vote is transferred to your second-choice candidate, while my vote stays with my first choice candidate. Neither of us gets any more votes than the other.
Myth #4: AV is complicated, most people can't understand it
AV is very similar to the voting on most reality TV shows - the candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and the people who voted for that candidate can transfer their support to someone else. Millions of people in Britain are familiar with this kind of system because they've watched it at work on Strictly Come Dancing, Dancing on Ice, The X-Factor, Big Brother, etc.
Of course if you applied FPTP to those shows, not only would the losing candidate at each round be eliminated but the people who voted for them wouldn't be allowed to vote in any future rounds.
Myth #5: AV can't be explained in one sentence
I pretty much did that above: the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes transfer to those voters' next preferences, until a candidate has more than 50% of the votes.
Myth #6: You need more knowledge of politics to use AV effectively
The vast majority of people have enough knowledge to rank the candidates on offer with a simple 1, 2, 3. There's no need to think about tactics with AV in order to make your vote count, whereas with FPTP you need a good understanding of how people voted last time and how they're likely to vote this time to decide which of two fairly close candidates you should choose to vote for. FPTP encourages gameplay and dishonesty, and requires a great deal of political tactical knowledge and a lot of guesswork to make your vote count; AV simply doesn't.
Myth #7: AV costs more than FPTP
In the UK most vote-counting is done by volunteers. It's true that an AV election may take longer to count and process than an FPTP one, but if this time is being given for free there's no real cost implication. Even if AV does cost slightly more, it is surely a price worth paying for a fairer system. All elections cost money and if cost was more important than democracy surely we wouldn't have elections at all.
Myth #8: FPTP has served us well for this long, it's therefore fit for purpose now
The political landscape has changed significantly over the last 20 years or so. Gone are the days where we had a two-party system and everyone was either Labour or Tory with a few floating voters in marginal seats having all the power to make or break governments. With the advent and increasing popularity of other parties (not all of which are still active) such as the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Green Party, Socialist Labour, Veritas, the BNP, the Referendum Party, and others, FPTP no longer cuts the mustard. Most voters, instead of lining up solidly with one party, find that their views are partially represented by many parties, some more so than others. AV allows voters to express this range of preferences, whereas FPTP comes nowhere near reflecting, or even recording, what voters' views really are.
Myth #9: The voting system is a matter of personal preference - there's nothing objective
On the contrary, there have been many independent studies looking at voting systems, their relative merits and pitfalls, and what would fit best for the UK.
When New Labour were elected in 1997 they established an independent commission to examine the options for voting MPs into the UK Parliament. The Independent Commission on the Voting System published their findings in 1998, having looked at FPTP, AV and proportional representation. Their findings were conclusive, and they recommended AV for electing constituency MPs. (They also recommended that there should be some additional "top-up" MPs that span several constituencies).
A New Scientist article last yearFPTP]".
Some would argue that these next two are not as independent as those above; I'll let you be the judge of that.
The UK's leading progressive think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, published a paper earlier this year whose title says it all: Worst of Both Worlds: Why First Past the Post no longer works.
The Electoral Reform Society favours a fully proportional system, which would do away with the notion of having a single MP covering a single constituency; instead teams of MPs would be elected covering much bigger constituencies, using the method we currently use for electing MEPs. But when looking at AV against FPTP, which is what next week's referendum is a choice between, they are clear: "The Electoral Reform Society regards AV as the best voting system when a single position is being elected."
The "no to AV" campaigners have completely failed to find any similarly independent papers or evidence that supports FPTP over AV. With such strong evidence showing that AV is the better system, there's little wonder that the "no" campaigners have resorted to smear tactics and the peddling of myths in order to help their campaign. But if the public believe those myths and vote "no" next week, it will be a very sad day indeed for Britain and a very sad day for democracy.
We're unlikely to get another chance to change the voting system, and it sorely needs changing. Please vote Yes to the Alternative Vote.
Cameron "incorrect and highly misleading", says Oxford University
Tony Blair. Remember him? He was a pretty good prime minister on the whole, did wonders for the NHS and education, but made a few blunders on the international front. He'll always be remembered for the Iraq War - probably his biggest blunder by quite a long way. Perhaps the reason Iraq stands out so much in our minds when we think of Blair's tenure is that a mistake of that magnitude was in stark contrast to what Blair's government were doing in other areas. It wasn't all good, but it was infinitely better than what the Tories had offered in the previous government under John Major. And when you hear Blair talking about Iraq, he still thinks it was the right thing to do; perhaps that's naive of him, perhaps it's incompetent, but the important thing is that it's genuine. Blair was trying to do what was right, he believed his advisors when they told him that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and he acted on that advice. He did not set out to deliberately mislead people.
Sadly that cannot be said for David Cameron. He hasn't been in office long, and he has already made some pretty stupid mistakes; today, for example, Oxford University responded to his daft assertion that they had only admitted one black student in 2009, saying he had been "incorrect and highly misleading". Apparently the actual number is 26, which is still appallingly low, so Cameron's argument should still hold some weight - but because he got his facts wrong, Oxford University have pretty much dismissed his argument. It's a bit like the light bulb thing all over again.
In that case, though, perhaps Cameron made an honest mistake. It makes him look stupid for a few moments, but it's forgiveable; it doesn't really undermine any trust we happen to have in him. Were he, though, to attempt to deliberately mislead people, that would be a different matter - and sadly, today, he's been doing exactly that.
"It's a system," he said of the Alternative Vote, "so undemocratic that you can vote for a mainstream party just once, whereas someone can vote for a fringe party like the BNP and it's counted three times..."
Wrong.
The circumstances he's alluding to are where a party, in this case the BNP, receive the smallest share of the vote. Under AV in those circumstances, the BNP are wiped out of the competition and those votes are transferred to the second choice candidates. The key word there being transferred. Votes for the BNP would not be counted three times - in fact they would stop counting at all. David Cameron knows this, and in making statements like the one above he is deliberately trying to mislead voters, attempting to scaremonger them into submission.
A true democrat would lay the facts on the table in an honest way, argue his corner without fabricating rubbish like that, and let the electorate decide. A worthy Prime Minister would not deliberately attempt to mislead the electorate in such a despicable way. Today David Cameron showed his true colours: he's anti democracy, and he's not sufficiently trustworthy to be our Prime Minister.
Sadly that cannot be said for David Cameron. He hasn't been in office long, and he has already made some pretty stupid mistakes; today, for example, Oxford University responded to his daft assertion that they had only admitted one black student in 2009, saying he had been "incorrect and highly misleading". Apparently the actual number is 26, which is still appallingly low, so Cameron's argument should still hold some weight - but because he got his facts wrong, Oxford University have pretty much dismissed his argument. It's a bit like the light bulb thing all over again.
In that case, though, perhaps Cameron made an honest mistake. It makes him look stupid for a few moments, but it's forgiveable; it doesn't really undermine any trust we happen to have in him. Were he, though, to attempt to deliberately mislead people, that would be a different matter - and sadly, today, he's been doing exactly that.
"It's a system," he said of the Alternative Vote, "so undemocratic that you can vote for a mainstream party just once, whereas someone can vote for a fringe party like the BNP and it's counted three times..."
Wrong.
The circumstances he's alluding to are where a party, in this case the BNP, receive the smallest share of the vote. Under AV in those circumstances, the BNP are wiped out of the competition and those votes are transferred to the second choice candidates. The key word there being transferred. Votes for the BNP would not be counted three times - in fact they would stop counting at all. David Cameron knows this, and in making statements like the one above he is deliberately trying to mislead voters, attempting to scaremonger them into submission.
A true democrat would lay the facts on the table in an honest way, argue his corner without fabricating rubbish like that, and let the electorate decide. A worthy Prime Minister would not deliberately attempt to mislead the electorate in such a despicable way. Today David Cameron showed his true colours: he's anti democracy, and he's not sufficiently trustworthy to be our Prime Minister.
The cost of democracy
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
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
One person, one vote - which system delivers?
The principle of one person, one vote is a simple one, and one that nobody really disagrees with; nobody's vote should carry more weight than anybody else's - in other words, every vote should count. I'm somewhat surprised that those campaigning for first-past-the-post as opposed to the alternative vote are using this principle to back their views - because FPTP does not deliver it whereas AV does.
In FPTP, the only votes that count are those for the winning candidate, which is very often a minority. It means that the majority of people's votes don't count at all in the final result. Whereas with AV, every vote counts. If your first choice candidate is ruled out, your vote still counts, because it's transferred to your second-choice candidate. Thus the result of an AV election takes account of every person's vote, whereas many FPTP elections result in most of the votes not counting at all.
The FPTP (no to AV) campaigners say that those supporting minority parties get a greater say in AV, that their votes get counted several times over, that AV is unfair. This is tosh; under AV every person's vote counts once, no more and no less. No one person gets more choice than anyone else, nobody's vote counts for more than anyone else's. Under AV, votes for losing candidates get transferred; but a transferable vote is still one, single vote, and doesn't count for any more than anybody else's vote. Failing to transfer that vote would mean it would no longer count - that voter's choice would be ignored completely - and that is undemocratic.
So let's make every vote count, precisely once, no more and no less: vote yes to AV in May.
In FPTP, the only votes that count are those for the winning candidate, which is very often a minority. It means that the majority of people's votes don't count at all in the final result. Whereas with AV, every vote counts. If your first choice candidate is ruled out, your vote still counts, because it's transferred to your second-choice candidate. Thus the result of an AV election takes account of every person's vote, whereas many FPTP elections result in most of the votes not counting at all.
The FPTP (no to AV) campaigners say that those supporting minority parties get a greater say in AV, that their votes get counted several times over, that AV is unfair. This is tosh; under AV every person's vote counts once, no more and no less. No one person gets more choice than anyone else, nobody's vote counts for more than anyone else's. Under AV, votes for losing candidates get transferred; but a transferable vote is still one, single vote, and doesn't count for any more than anybody else's vote. Failing to transfer that vote would mean it would no longer count - that voter's choice would be ignored completely - and that is undemocratic.
So let's make every vote count, precisely once, no more and no less: vote yes to AV in May.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)