Why I Remain Undecided on AV
By Emma.
I am still undecided on AV. I am leaning towards voting yes, but I have so far found the level of debate pitiful. The Yes Campaign have got their act together a bit more recently, and have been campaigning far more positively. The No campaign is kind of ridiculous, and shows more about Director Matthew Elliott’s obsessions than the genuine arguments against AV of which there are some, which I will articulate below.
AV is a crap choice really. The democracy movement in the country must – behind closed doors – be absolutely fuming with Nick Clegg and the Lib Dem negotiators, because by holding this referendum they are putting off reform towards anything actually proportional for at least a generation. We simply will not have another referendum on the same issue for 20 years. AV is not a stepping stone, it’s the choice we have to measure against first past the post because it will be one of these two we are stuck with.
Under AV it would certainly be true that more people would have preferenced their local MP. It wouldn’t guarantee 50% plus of the electorate as is sometimes argued, but certainly it would be the case that more people would feel they had a hand in picking the winner, even if that winner is not their first or sometimes second choice.
My concern is that under AV, parties will start to choose candidates that appeal to a broader electorate. That sounds like a good thing, but with the most common phrase on the doorstep being “you’re all the same” what concerns me is that politics will become even more of a fight between different smooth-edged managerial types with centrists being highly represented, but at the expense of a wide range of views and characters being expressed.
So for me, this referendum is about competing visions of pluralism. Both are valid and there are arguments for both. That’s why I’m having such a hard time choosing.
Tags: av
Thursday, March 3rd 2011 at 14:39
I think the problem here lies within how you define what people mean by “you’re all the same.”
For me, whenever anybody says it, it denotes their anger at broken promises and workshy, expense-sponging old men who sit in the HoC and laude it up over the rest of us.
AV will start to curb the above definition; candidates will have to appeal to a braoder base, but that entails actually going out to meet them and collect the views of all on their local area and what needs to be done.
There are many things already wrong with how parties (especially Labour) choose candidates, so I don’t really think this will make a huge amount of difference in the grand scheme of things.
But the idealist in me does like the idea that results & work ethic may become the way in which we judge who we hand the power to.
Saturday, March 5th 2011 at 01:04
I will be voting no to AV, and I agree that the no campaign is pathetic. I have never ran a campaign, but I wish I was running this one. They haven’t given anybody a good reason to vote no, even though there are plenty of reasons.
I will be voting no, because first past the post is easier for people to understand and it is fair. The problem is not the voting system, but the amount of constituencies, for example the name Barnsley Central implies that Barnsley has more than one MP. One MP should be enough.
There should be 350 constituencies. The person who has the most votes wins, like on reality TV shows.
I also oppose proportional representation. Who is my MEP? Answer, I have six MEPs. How am I supposed to know which one I should go to to talk about EU matters? All six can claim to be representing me, but be saying different things in my name.
I conseed the yes campaign is doing better than the no campaign, but we’re not choosing between the campaigns, we’re choosing between voting systems.
Sunday, March 6th 2011 at 20:09
if the Yes to AV campaign wins the referendum by sufficient margin of majority and in a significantly-sized turn-out, it could be seen as a rejection of FPP and clear support for a system of AV.
Thus, a future government could, if it wished, simply introduce legislation for a change to AV+ without any need for a further referendum.
In this, AV could be a stepping stone towards AV+
an appealing prospect for those people who don’t like FPP but don’t fancy full PR and STV.
Personally, whilst I understand the fear about centrist candidates being chosen, I don’t think that AV or AV+ would squeeze out sincere free-thinking individuals any more than the increased regimentation of the past 20 years has done, with its promotion of so many careerist politicians.
The reduction in number of MPs from 652 to 600 is a very serious matter, imho, and is potentially very damaging to Parliament and to the freedom and independence and individuality of backbenchers.
Government and party machines will have opportunity for way too much control.
Thursday, April 7th 2011 at 18:43
A very interesting blog indeed Scarlet Standard.
I think the notion that the democracy movement in this country can have a very real grievance against the Lib Dems is partly true, but also somewhat dismisses the political reality of things. The Lib Dems have long campaigned for true PR and given the Labour party’s somewhat schismatic approach to electoral reform I think that accepting the binding agreement of holding a referendum on AV was better than the alternatives.
Unfortunately the Labour party has for years made tokenistic gestures in regards to reforming our electoral system – and made a half-decent start with the House of Lords – but I think the clear split within the Labour party on AV shows just how problematic this issue could have been for any government (putting aside the fact that it’s an acceptable system for electing a Labour party leader).
On a more personal note I would like to think that a change to AV will see more Green/fringe party MPs elected who will have an inherent desire to see a further step-change in the political structure towards true PR.
So yes it’s a ‘measly little compromise’, but is it a step further along the track? For me, yes. Under true PR it is highly likely that coalition governance will become the norm and not the exception within British politics and sometimes we just have to compromise and move half a step forward at a time (preferably half a left foot).
Wednesday, May 4th 2011 at 11:57
Hi folks. You might find this little diagram interesting. it shows the weakness of our current system:
http://www.progressivecyberspace.com/first-past-the-post.gif