Lib Dems are idealists- it’s one of the reasons I’m one if them. So why are we going to campaign for a non-ideal voting system? I’ll try to explain that here, but note I’m not going to explain the systems themselves; I’ll link to them as we go, though.
“Proportional Representation” (i.e. MMCSTV) is the ideal electoral system for the UK, according to us. It retains a modified constituency link, while providing a choice of advocate for any casework a constituent might need. It is also proportional to a finer granularity; although no constituency-based system is fully proportional. Finally, and most importantly, it means that people can vote for whichever party they want, regardless of where they live- since you can specify your preference for a minor party followed by whichever of the front runners you prefer, meaning that you might secure a single representative from your first preference, but if not, your view is still taken into account.
AV is less good. It is still based on single member constituencies; so all the advantages gained by having a choice of advocates are lost. The granularity is still wrong too- it can be just as disproportionate as FPTP. The bit of it that’s just as good as PR, the bit that is worth fighting for, is the freedom to vote for whoever you want.
Under an AV election in 2015, the British public will be, for the first time ever, asked whose policies they like best, not which of the parties who did well last time in their area they detest the least. For the first time, you won’t need dodgy graphs and made up statistics; local activists will be able to campaign on policy, not nonsense. For the first time, we’ll see in the first preference results how much the two ‘big’ parties have lost peoples’ trust since the 1950s.
Don’t let any pollster tell you “what would happen under AV” either. We have no idea how people would vote if they had a free choice, and no polling data exists for that territory.
AV is not ideal; but it does set people a little freer in the ballot box. It is half way there; multiple member constituencies are a natural next step in the 2015 parliament.
Come on idealistic Liberals, don’t despair because it’s not perfect, give people the freedom to vote for whoever they want.
Tags: technical, voting systems
If Parliament passes the law to allow a referendum there will be two pots of public money provided for two campaigns. There will be a ‘NO’ campaign opposed to AV and in support of first-past-the-post and they’ll claim half the money. The other pot should be claimed, I believe, by another ‘NO’ campaign opposed to both AV and first-past-the-post and demanding PR. That way, no one will be campaigning ‘YES’ for the politicians’ AV. The Government will be paying for total opposition. Their bluff will be called.
No one wants AV. It was a little sweet held out by the Tories to lure Lib Dems into partnership. Neither party believes in it and Labour is planning to fight it. If we vote for AV we are accepting smiley Cameron’s sticky little humbug and pleasing no one.
What right have politicians to limit our choice of voting systems, anyway? They have a vested interest! They include people who tried to skew the Freedom of Information Act to serve their own interests. They include people who screwed the Parliamentary expenses system in their own interests. They have safe seats to protect! Remind the public of all that and make sure politicians are sidelined on this voting referendum. This is a choice for voters.
If we fight for AV and lose it, we may not get another chance at electoral reform for another generation. Certainly not with the Tories. A future Labour government – or coalition partner – is less likely to bother with PR if we’ve only just introduced AV, or if we’ve fought for it and lost. Campaign loudly, now, for PR.
Well said Joe!
Urgh, have you been listening to Tom Harris?!
I want PR too, but I still want AV over FPTP! “Noone wants AV” is nonsense, and a No campaign in favour of PR is indistinguishable from the FPTP campaign. We tried, and failed, to get PR on the ballot- a No vote is a vote for FPTP, whichever way you try to spin it.
AV is not the “politicians” voting system, it is just another voting system. Politicians are the only ones with the power to arrange referendums, or indeed to amend the voting regulations manually. It is rubbish that we have this broken constitution with a sovereign single assembly, but we do, and until we address that, we can’t amend the voting system without the “professionals”.
Within that framework, talk of doing things just to spite politicians is anarchistic and solves nothing.
I will be campaigning for AV, because it is better than first past the post, in that it increases peoples freedoms. I don’t see any reason to take into account the nonsense-politics surrounding that fact.