Electoral Reform is Sexy. Honest
I'm breaking my usual posting schedule of silence and memes to talk politics, specifically, tomorrow's referendum about the voting system. Apologies to non-Brits, who this will be irrelevent to, and also to anyone else who prefers not to have politics shoved down their throats via LJ.
So how does AV work?
It's actually pretty simple:
1. On your voting slip, you rank the candidates in order of preference. You can rank all of them if you wish, or just a few of them. If you really want, you can still just pick one candidate.
2. All the first preference votes are counted. If one candidate has 50% or more of the vote (i.e. a majority), then they've won. If not, then...
3. ...The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the second preferences of the people who voted for that candidate are added to the remaining first preferences. It's a bit like saying to those people "Oh, you can't have that candidate, so who's your second choice?" except that they've decided in advance.
4. This process continues, eliminating the least popular candidate and distributing the next preferences of their voters, until someone gets 50%.
There are some great You Tube vids that explain all this much better than I have, using
Post-its:
Dan Snow and Pubs:
And, because this is the internet, cats:
So why is AV better?
In my opinion, AV's biggest strength is the requirement that an MP must have 50% of the votes in their constituency in order to be elected. This is much fairer than the current system, where MPs can be (and many are) elected on about 30% of the vote and therefore represent a constituency where more people didn't vote for them than did.
I also think it better represents real life. Lots of people feel strongly about keeping one party out, lots like some elements of one party's manifesto but also like bits of another, some prefer the ideology of one party but think their local, rival party MP does a lot of good work for the constituency. Under AV you can use your preferences to express all this.
Ultimately though, under AV, more people's votes will count. And that's fairer.
So who are the teams?
On the Yes side:
- Lib Dems
- Half the Labour Party
- Greens
- UKIP
- Electoral Reform Society
- Lots of grassroots campaigners
On the No Side:
- Conservatives (with a few exceptions)
- The other half of the Labour party
- BNP
- Lots of Conservative Special Advisors
The myths of the No campaign debunked
1. People get more than one vote! How can that be fair?
No, people's second preferences only count if their first choice is eliminated. It's like going into a cafe, asking for an egg sandwich but finding out they've run out and choosing cheese instead. You haven't had two sandwiches. AV is still one person, one vote.
2. Hardly anyone uses AV.
Well no, actually. As well being the voting system used for national elections in Australia and other places it's used up and down the country for elections in unions, student unions, mayoral elections (including London), in some kinds of Scottish Parliament elections and in clubs and societies.
It's also used loads in Parliament. The Speaker, Select Committee chairs, remaining hereditary Lords and the Labour and Conservative party leaders are elected by AV (interesting fact, if the Conservative party elected their leader by FPTP, David Davis would be our Prime Minister). If it's good enough for them, then why not for us?
3. It'll be expensive because you need electronic voting machines.
Voting machines aren't necessary and there are no plans to use them.
4. It'll let the BNP in.
Actually, under AV extremist parties are unlikely to be elected because they would need 50% of the vote, rather than the small majority that would suffice under FPTP. That's why the BNP are in the No camp.
Some wonderful soul has debunked the No leaflet through the power of close reading. You can see it here.
TL;DR Please vote yes, it's fairer and it will make me happy. ;)
So how does AV work?
It's actually pretty simple:
1. On your voting slip, you rank the candidates in order of preference. You can rank all of them if you wish, or just a few of them. If you really want, you can still just pick one candidate.
2. All the first preference votes are counted. If one candidate has 50% or more of the vote (i.e. a majority), then they've won. If not, then...
3. ...The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the second preferences of the people who voted for that candidate are added to the remaining first preferences. It's a bit like saying to those people "Oh, you can't have that candidate, so who's your second choice?" except that they've decided in advance.
4. This process continues, eliminating the least popular candidate and distributing the next preferences of their voters, until someone gets 50%.
There are some great You Tube vids that explain all this much better than I have, using
Post-its:
Click to viewDan Snow and Pubs:
And, because this is the internet, cats:
So why is AV better?
In my opinion, AV's biggest strength is the requirement that an MP must have 50% of the votes in their constituency in order to be elected. This is much fairer than the current system, where MPs can be (and many are) elected on about 30% of the vote and therefore represent a constituency where more people didn't vote for them than did.
I also think it better represents real life. Lots of people feel strongly about keeping one party out, lots like some elements of one party's manifesto but also like bits of another, some prefer the ideology of one party but think their local, rival party MP does a lot of good work for the constituency. Under AV you can use your preferences to express all this.
Ultimately though, under AV, more people's votes will count. And that's fairer.
So who are the teams?
On the Yes side:
- Lib Dems
- Half the Labour Party
- Greens
- UKIP
- Electoral Reform Society
- Lots of grassroots campaigners
On the No Side:
- Conservatives (with a few exceptions)
- The other half of the Labour party
- BNP
- Lots of Conservative Special Advisors
The myths of the No campaign debunked
1. People get more than one vote! How can that be fair?
No, people's second preferences only count if their first choice is eliminated. It's like going into a cafe, asking for an egg sandwich but finding out they've run out and choosing cheese instead. You haven't had two sandwiches. AV is still one person, one vote.
2. Hardly anyone uses AV.
Well no, actually. As well being the voting system used for national elections in Australia and other places it's used up and down the country for elections in unions, student unions, mayoral elections (including London), in some kinds of Scottish Parliament elections and in clubs and societies.
It's also used loads in Parliament. The Speaker, Select Committee chairs, remaining hereditary Lords and the Labour and Conservative party leaders are elected by AV (interesting fact, if the Conservative party elected their leader by FPTP, David Davis would be our Prime Minister). If it's good enough for them, then why not for us?
3. It'll be expensive because you need electronic voting machines.
Voting machines aren't necessary and there are no plans to use them.
4. It'll let the BNP in.
Actually, under AV extremist parties are unlikely to be elected because they would need 50% of the vote, rather than the small majority that would suffice under FPTP. That's why the BNP are in the No camp.
Some wonderful soul has debunked the No leaflet through the power of close reading. You can see it here.
TL;DR Please vote yes, it's fairer and it will make me happy. ;)