Alternative Vote – If you vote No, you’re answering the wrong question

On the 5th of May there’s a referendum. The question posed is thus:

At present, the UK uses the “first past the post” system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the “alternative vote” system be used instead?

The campaigns for and against are currently in full swing, and there’s something quite striking about the “No” campaign: it’s saying No to the wrong question. The question is answers is this:

Is the Alternative Vote the best system we could have to elect MPs to the House of Commons.

The answer to that is clearly No. The Alternative vote isn’t a great system at all. It has it’s merits, but it’s certainly not a a good example of Proportional Representation. Even Nick Clegg called it “a miserable little compromise” and he’s the one pushing the damn thing. The No campaign has focused on this and are demonising AV like it’ll herald the end of democracy, while neglecting to defend the system they’re trying to make us stick with for all eternity.

However, read the question being posed again. It’s not “Should we use the Alternative Vote?”, it’s “Should we use the Alternative vote instead of First Past The Post?”. Both systems are, broadly speaking, majoritarian systems (that is, they’re designed to give the winning party a significant majority). Neither system is ideal when you’re considering fair representation of the people’s views across the whole country, but in a >2 party system (like we have in the UK), First Past the Post (FPTP from now on) simply doesn’t make sense.
The key difference between to 2 systems is this: Under FPTP, a candidate can win without the support of the majority of voters in their constituency. In fact, the more candidates who stand, the less support they need to win due to the vote being split (see, the BNP winning council seats, which is why they’re against the change). Under AV, 50% of voters must vote for a candidate in some capacity for them to win. With only 2 parties, FPTP is fine as one candidate will always have a majority (unless its a dead heat). With more than 2, AV is the clear choice to keep voting fair and results meaningful.

Until a better option comes along, let’s snap it up. Vote yes.

Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Alternative Vote – If you vote No, you’re answering the wrong question

  1. Anonymous says:

    I’m not entirely sure PR is the best way – I prefer AV (granted, I’m no expert).

    To be honest, I’m making this judgement based on the little I know of political history. Post WW1, Germany set up the Weimar republic, using the PR system. With the amount of parties they had, they were unable to form a majority parliament using PR – so the parliaments were based upon alliances formed between parties (similar to the coalition we have now, just with more parties involved) which meant that the country sort of floundered, with no one party able to implement all of the changes they wanted and govern the country properly.

    Granted they had more problems to deal with than we do now – the Treaty of Versailles saw to that. Then in 1929 the Wall Street Crash happened, sending Germany into financial melt down, hyper inflation and then, eventually, fascism.

    Now I’m not implying that we’re going to all end up as some form of Nazis, but I think it is a good example of how PR doesn’t work too well… at least in my opinion.

    Either way, I’m all for AV. 😀

    We need to catch up soon (it’s Aidan, by the way!)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *