AV yes or no?


This is an article by Ismail Mulla and Louise Atkinson.
You could write for Behind the Spin too. Find out how here.

Yes to AV

This May we will be given the chance to change the way we elect our MPs. The current First Past The Post (FPTP) system is clearly not working. MPs are getting elected with less than 30% of the vote, meaning that 70% of the electorate are totally disregarded.

When the outcome of elections is decided by only 10,000 people in marginal seats, something is clearly wrong.

Students are seen as idealists; now AV isn’t necessarily ideal, it isn’t totally proportional, but compared to FPTP, it is the better system. AV will ensure one of the few positives of FPTP – the single member constituency link, but it will ensure MPs have a proper mandate.

The fact that MPs have to get 50% of the vote means that they can’t rely on safe seats anymore and just expect their core supporters to return them to power. They will have to go out there and appeal for the votes of different people in their community, including students who have been regularly neglected by MPs.

A lot of first time voters at last year’s election will be disillusioned that their vote didn’t count as much as the vote of someone in a marginal. No wonder young people lose interest in politics. I know because I personally felt disenfranchised when the election results were announced.

MPs will have to think twice before voting for an increase in tuition fees. They will have to think twice when considering cuts to our education; they will have to engage with us before going to war. MPs will have to work harder.

The question that many students will ask is why are we spending money on a referendum when we face huge cuts to our education. The fact of the matter is that holding the referendum at the same time as the local elections makes it cheaper. The cost for the referendum whichever way you vote is going to be the same. The lies being spread by the No side are just that: lies.

It isn’t going to cost us £250 million. Vote counting machines will not be needed, they didn’t need them in Australia in 1918 and the Electoral Commission has said we won’t be buying vote counting machines. The Treasury has produced a letter saying that the cost of the vote in the next general election will not be any more that the last one we held under FPTP.

Baroness Warsi says that AV would let extremist parties in. False. Under Single Transferable Vote (STV) there may be a chance of BNP gaining seats but under AV, they have to gain 50% of the vote or more in order to be elected. Under FPTP the BNP can be elected with less than 30% of the vote. This has happened. AV raises the bar, so locking out extremists.

Ultimately this is our chance to have a say on the way we elect those who govern on our behalf. It’s time for the student voice to be heard, it’s time to say Yes to AV.

Ismail Mulla

No to AV

With the Alternative Vote (AV) referendum less than three weeks away politicians, in cross-party No and Yes camps, have today given their rival speeches.

I have listened to both arguments and acknowledge that there are pros and cons from each side but I am, nevertheless, voting No to AV.  My vote for No is a simple decision and it centres on one overriding factor: money.

Various figures have been circulated in the press (most probably exaggerated by the No Campaign and minimised by the Yes Campaign) about how much the implementation of a new voting system will cost the British tax payer. The No campaign, for example, estimates that the referendum could cost up to £250 million.

The exact figure, I believe, is irrelevant because what I can be confident about is that a substantial sum of tax payers’ money will be needed for a new voting system and, to contradict Eddie Izzard, I am also certain that the cost will be much greater than simply buying more pens!

The main argument from the Yes campaign is that it is fairer than the first-past-the-post system. In response, I give you this very simple counter-argument: what is fair about spending the public’s money – the public who are, quite frankly, suffering enough – on a voting system rather than on, for example, vital services?

The money that is needed for voting reform, as all three main political parties agree, is in short supply; regardless of who you blame for the budget deficit, the fact remains that government spending is being reduced and cuts are being made across the country.  I have to therefore agree wholeheartedly with the No campaign’s slogan that “the simple fact is our country cannot afford AV.”

And finally let’s not forget the next general election is four years away. Thus, I don’t believe that AV is fundamentally wrong but I do believe that this is the wrong time for a referendum.

Louise Atkinson

Comments

  1. Denis Cooper says:

    The claim that it would cost £250 million to switch to AV is bogus.

    It’s made up of the cost of the referendum itself, which will be the same whether the answer is “yes” or “no”, plus the cost of voting or counting machines which wouldn’t be needed and wouldn’t be purchased, plus the cost of educating the public about AV before the next general election even though the public is being educated about AV now by the Electoral Commission, and the cost of that is included in the cost of the referendum.

    In other words, a complete fabrication.

    There would be a small increase in the cost of a general election held under AV compared to FPTP, because on average the counts would take a bit longer (or more tellers would need to employed to speed them up).

    Here are the tabulated results of a parliamentary by-election held in Ireland under the same variant of AV that we would have:

    http://electionsireland.org/counts.cfm?election=2007B&cons=85&ref

    Ballot paper and pencil followed by a transparent manual count, and with nine candidates and eight counting rounds it can be seen that the tellers would have rather more work to do than if it has just been a single count under FPTP – in fact, about 59% more sorting and counting operations than under FPTP.

    But in other cases only one counting round, or possibly two or three, would be necessary before the final winner was identified.

    According to this:

    http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/depositedpapers/2011/DEP2011-0248.pdf

    the cost of the actual count for this referendum will be about £5.9 million, so allow some more for the total costs of the more complicated general election counts under FPTP, and then be generous and say that the total cost of the counts would increase by 50% when we changed to AV, and that would work out at a few million added to the cost of each general election as a result of AV.

  2. So we have one person voting yes because AV is better, one person voting no because money is more important than our future, and one person voting no in order to make a personal attack.

    I expect this to be representative of the country as a whole, and that makes me sad 🙁

  3. I removed a comment just before Shish posted these thoughts.

    We welcome debate; we welcome opinions. But we do not accept personal abuse as an acceptable form of argument.

Trackbacks

  1. […] views on AV are clear to be seen here. Several political commentators and experts have added their two penneths worth. The Conservatives […]

Leave a comment