Kent News have just run an online poll which found that 57% of people voted yes to changing parliamentary elections to a proportional system against 29% who wanted to keep the current one. Completely opposite to the AV vote.
Obviously not a carefully weighted selection sample adjusted for demographic variables but encouraging none the less.
Green Party campaigner in Kent. Also a nurse, academic, former manager, writer, Druid, husband and father...
Showing posts with label electoral reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label electoral reform. Show all posts
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Friday, 29 April 2011
Monday, 25 April 2011
Why we should vote Yes
While AV has been described as a 'miserable little compromise' and the knowing that the vote is between a deeply unfair and disproportionate system where you can vote once, and a deeply unfair and disproportionate system where you can express your preferences, I am still convinced that we should vote Yes in the AV referendum.
Our democracy is broken and AV is only a very small step to true reform and a modern democracy. But unless we are able to take this small step, progress is likely to be stopped in its tracks. Those desperate to hang on to our discredited political system will herald a No vote as a desire to stick with a sham system that allows government to be elected by just 22% of the population.
Under FPTP, most people who vote in elections end up voting for a candidate who loses meaning that most people are not represented by a candidate that they support. Under AV a candidate needs to achieve 50% of the vote so under AV, most voters would be represented by someone they support.
Claims that AV is expensive and too complicated are simply untrue. There is no need for expensive machines – this claim by the No campaign is not based on fact and has been widely discredited. AV is a straightforward system to count.
No campaigners also claim that people can’t cope with using 1,2 and 3 to rank their candidates in order of preference, a claim that is frankly insulting. Perhaps the best reason to vote No might be an inability to count to three?
What AV will achieve is being able to express a preference and one that has a 50:50 chance of counting. It will make a small improvement to our discredited electoral system and it should be seen as the first step on a road to real democracy.
If you want to consider just how bad the FPTP system is, just consider how we elect the new bodies in this country, the London, Scottish and Welsh assemblies as well as MEPs are elected proportionally. The Major of London and the leader of the Labour party are elected using AV. Astonishingly even David Cameron was elected as leader of the Conservatives using a form of AV –he came second in the first round of voting.
Before you vote, ask yourself what type of electoral system you think will give us the type of politics that we have seen for the last 100 years. If you want change, you will need to vote for it.
Sunday, 20 February 2011
AV: Rock and a Hard Place
Yesterday's headline of the CamerClegg split on AV was an obvious, but boring, attempt to demonstrate a difference between the two parties, which the Lib Dems desparately need to demonstrate that they are not Tories in the run up to the May elections.
My friend Jim has produced a great take on the Yes and No campaigns so I'm not going to dwell on those, but take a look at the key points made by Cameron and Clegg, with my comments in red:
Mr C. v1:
* The Alternative Vote (AV) system would lead to unfair election results, with the public's second choice capable of gaining power. Just 22% of the electorate put Blair in power in 2005, and 29% put Cameron in power. Second choice eh?
* The current system allows voters to "turf out" unpopular governments - Gordon Brown could still be prime minister under AV. AV may be more likely to turf out unpopular MPs but there is little evidence to support either point.
* AV is complicated and could be costly to explain and run - and some people's votes are counted more than others. Complicated - are you suggesting that voters are thick, Mr C? Expensive, hardly.
* It will lead to a more bland, boring politics, as voters end up choosing the least controversial candidate. Any chance of some evidence to support this doubtful claim?
* AV encourages negative campaigning, with parties standing outside polling stations telling voters how to rank candidates. Standing outside polling stations telling voters how to vote would break electoral law but could equally happen now and how is putting 1, 2, 3 etc negative?
* AV could mean more hung parliaments and "horse trading" between parties and is not even the preferred system of AV supporters. There are very few AV supporter - most electroal reformists want any of the other systems and in theory coalitions avoid dictatorships...
Mr C. v2:
* The current system breeds corruption and means millions of votes are wasted. Votes are wasted under FPTP and less so under AV but AV won't get rid of corruption.
* Changing to the Alternative Vote (AV) will mean an end to "jobs for life in safe seats". No it won't, safe seats will still be safe seats.
* It will make politics "less tribal" and more open-minded - parties will have to reach out beyond their core vote and broaden their appeal. Based on what analysis?
* It would also mean an end to elections being decided by a few thousand swing voters in marginal seats - and give smaller parties a bigger shout. Again, based on what analysis? Also smaller parties may do worse under AV.
* It is also simple ("as easy as 1,2,3") and fairer - and keeps the link between constituencies and voters and will produce strong, stable governments. It is still not proportional and will still leave the majority of people not represented by someone they want.
* It is not a major change - it would not have altered the outcome of any election since 1983 - but it would mean MPs would have have to work harder for your vote. No, it is a pathetically small change that will make very little difference.
The problem is that the arguments being put forward by both sides are not based on anything substantial. Jim Jepps suggests that people are being asked to choose with the hearts rather than minds and he thinks this is because the arguments are so poor. I'm inclined to agree, but the arguments are poor from both camps because we are being asked to choose between a rock and a hard place.
The best argument so far has to be from DocRichard: "If AV falls, the idiots will say 'That's settled then. The people have voted for FPTP. End of.' and we will be stuck with FPTP for yet more dreary decades. If AV, for all its pusillanonimity, wins, the FPTP log jam will have been broken. This will be s symbolic change. We can then campaign for its upgrading for AV+, which will mean that the will of the people is represented in Parliament."
My friend Jim has produced a great take on the Yes and No campaigns so I'm not going to dwell on those, but take a look at the key points made by Cameron and Clegg, with my comments in red:
Mr C. v1:
* The Alternative Vote (AV) system would lead to unfair election results, with the public's second choice capable of gaining power. Just 22% of the electorate put Blair in power in 2005, and 29% put Cameron in power. Second choice eh?
* The current system allows voters to "turf out" unpopular governments - Gordon Brown could still be prime minister under AV. AV may be more likely to turf out unpopular MPs but there is little evidence to support either point.
* AV is complicated and could be costly to explain and run - and some people's votes are counted more than others. Complicated - are you suggesting that voters are thick, Mr C? Expensive, hardly.
* It will lead to a more bland, boring politics, as voters end up choosing the least controversial candidate. Any chance of some evidence to support this doubtful claim?
* AV encourages negative campaigning, with parties standing outside polling stations telling voters how to rank candidates. Standing outside polling stations telling voters how to vote would break electoral law but could equally happen now and how is putting 1, 2, 3 etc negative?
* AV could mean more hung parliaments and "horse trading" between parties and is not even the preferred system of AV supporters. There are very few AV supporter - most electroal reformists want any of the other systems and in theory coalitions avoid dictatorships...
Mr C. v2:
* The current system breeds corruption and means millions of votes are wasted. Votes are wasted under FPTP and less so under AV but AV won't get rid of corruption.
* Changing to the Alternative Vote (AV) will mean an end to "jobs for life in safe seats". No it won't, safe seats will still be safe seats.
* It will make politics "less tribal" and more open-minded - parties will have to reach out beyond their core vote and broaden their appeal. Based on what analysis?
* It would also mean an end to elections being decided by a few thousand swing voters in marginal seats - and give smaller parties a bigger shout. Again, based on what analysis? Also smaller parties may do worse under AV.
* It is also simple ("as easy as 1,2,3") and fairer - and keeps the link between constituencies and voters and will produce strong, stable governments. It is still not proportional and will still leave the majority of people not represented by someone they want.
* It is not a major change - it would not have altered the outcome of any election since 1983 - but it would mean MPs would have have to work harder for your vote. No, it is a pathetically small change that will make very little difference.
The problem is that the arguments being put forward by both sides are not based on anything substantial. Jim Jepps suggests that people are being asked to choose with the hearts rather than minds and he thinks this is because the arguments are so poor. I'm inclined to agree, but the arguments are poor from both camps because we are being asked to choose between a rock and a hard place.
The best argument so far has to be from DocRichard: "If AV falls, the idiots will say 'That's settled then. The people have voted for FPTP. End of.' and we will be stuck with FPTP for yet more dreary decades. If AV, for all its pusillanonimity, wins, the FPTP log jam will have been broken. This will be s symbolic change. We can then campaign for its upgrading for AV+, which will mean that the will of the people is represented in Parliament."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)