Alternative Voting - UK Referendum
Posted: Apr 22, 2011, 18:08:35
So we're going to be having a referendum in the UK on whether we change our voting system from first past the post to alternative voting.
This will be only the second referendum in the history of the UK and our first ever opportunity to directly vote for a change in how our political system works. It might not be a subject that people find interesting, but it is an important and historic moment.
Alternative voting simply means that you rank the candidates in order of preference. If one candidate gets more than 50% of the vote they win, if not, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. When a candidate is eliminated the second choice of the people who voted for them is counted towards the remaining candidates and if one candidate gets over 50%, they win. If no one has 50% the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and the second choice of the people who voted for them have their second choice votes attributed to the remaining candidates. Etc.
Or as I like to think of it "if candidates from these parties were trapped in a burning building, in which order would you rescue them?".
I was generally thinking I'd vote yes, simply because it gives me greater expression at the polling booth. What has turned my probably voting yes into definitely yes is the utterly moronic and insulting vote no campaign.
There are some perfectly valid reasons for voting yes or no, the no campaign manages to respond to none of the reasons why you should vote yes and deftly avoids any of the decent reasons to vote no. So here is my summary of the vote no campaign arguments:
1. It costs money. Poster campaigns have shown a soldier with "our soldiers need body armour, not an alternative voting system" and a baby with "this baby needs an intensive care ward, not an alternative voting system". A crass over simplification presenting people with an entirely fictitious either/or choice. If this were in fact the case then presumably the soldier and the baby will go on to contest a final to decide who gets the money.
2. "The second or third best can win under AV". Rather depends on how you define "best". Say 10000 vote for party A, 9000 for party B, 8000 for party C, 7000 for party D, as things stand party A wins. But lets imagine that the people who voted for B,C and D all absolutely hated party A. That means a party that 70% of voters in that area hate wins, that doesn't quite sound like best to me. Admittedly a theoretical example, but it shows that the majority of people voting don't always get their views represented.
3. "Under our present system the one who comes first is always the winner". They provide a helpful diagram of a ballot paper with one x on it and then a bigger pile of papers with "WINNER!" over it. Starting to get a little condescending now. This is the same point as no. 2.
4. AV is unpopular. "AV is not a fair system. That's why only 3 countries in the world use it, Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea. And they don't even like it". No details on why it's unfair and the unpopular claim is supported by a survey from Australia that says 6 out of 10 people don't like it. There was a time when democracy was in a minority as a system for choosing government, according to their logic this would have made changing to democracy bad. Lots of countries have dictators, doesn't mean it's a good idea.
5. It takes more than a sentence to explain. This is where it gets insulting, to me this, and listening to various no campaigners, just sounds like "you are all too stupid to understand AV". Because you are all so monumentally thick, this is a bad idea.
6. "The winner should be the one that comes first". Comes with a helpful picture of a sprint race pointing to guy who came in 3rd with the caption "The winner under AV". Points number 2 and 3 again, also the system that decides which is the fastest horse may not be the best system for expressing the political preferences of voters.
7. Nick Clegg is a lying dick. No they didn't say it like that but that is the basic argument. They are just cashing in on Nick Clegg being really unpopular as he is the main reason we are having this referendum. So man thinks good idea is good, but I think that man is a dick, therefore his idea is automatically bad? No, that's another stupid argument. Even if I accept that logic I think David Cameron is a lying dick too and he wants me to vote no, just how do I choose which lying dick to listen to?
It's an important vote, I'm just so disappointed that the idiots in charge of the no campaign have done such an awful job.
*edit* Almost forgot, the last thing on the vote no leaflet is "The only vote that would count under AV would be Nick Clegg's". Yes, because apparently some subsection of the AV voting rules give all the votes to one man, no wait, that's entirely made up.
