The Referendum on the Voting System

Shortly everyone of voting age in Nailsea will be invited to participate in a referendum on the Alternative Voting System. Here are a few pointers to help you decide how to vote:

AV MYTHS:

The defenders of the status quo don’t want you to know what the change to AV really means.

They will say anything to stop giving voters more of a say, and

defending the old ‘jobs for life’ culture at Westminster.   They will

say anything to defend a system that means: 

• MPs can win seats with only 1 in 3 voters voting for them;
• MPs can have safe seats for life even though the majority of their constituents haven’t voted for them;
• MPs don’t have to reach out to secure over 50% of the vote in their constituencies. 

But the truth is that the AV system is a small change that will make a

big difference – making MPs work harder to get and stay elected, and

giving you more of a say.  No wonder the old political establishment

will say anything to stop it happening.

So let’s separate the fact from the fiction….

Myth 1) AV will cost us £250 million

The only piece of equipment you need to vote with AV is a pencil.

The No camp’s sums, like their arguments, simply don’t add up. Electronic counting machines aren’t an issue in this referendum.

Australia has hand counted its elections for 8 decades. The £130

million of make-believe machines don’t exist in Australia and won’t

exist in the UK.

AV will keep what is best about our current system – the link between

an MP serving their local constituency – but strengthens it by making

MPs work harder to get elected and giving voters more of a say. Short on arguments the No campaign are trying to claim we can’t afford change. After the expenses crisis we can’t afford not to.

Myth 2) AV is too confusing

Few people would be confused by this. Voters put a

‘1’ by their first choice, a ‘2’ by their second choice, a ‘3’ by their

third choice and so on. The logic’s familiar enough to anyone who’s ever

asked a friend to pop down to the shops for a coke and said, “If

they’re out of that I’ll have a lemonade.”

Some people have a very low estimation of the British public.

Myth 3) AV helps the BNP

The BNP have already called on their supporters to back a ‘No’ vote.

Currently because MPs can get elected with support from less than 1 in 3

voters, there is always a risk that extremist parties can get in.

The BNP have learnt this lesson, and have used it to scrape wins in

town halls across Britain. With AV, no-one can get elected unless most

people back them. Therefore the risk of extremist parties getting in by

the back door is eliminated.

Myth 4) No one uses AV

AV is a tried and tested system. In Britain millions

of people in businesses, charities, and trade unions already use it.

Political parties use it to elect their leaders. MPs themselves use it

to elect their Speaker and their officials.

When politicians are the voters – when they are electing their own

leaders – AV is the system they choose. When you need a real winner who

needs to speak for the majority AV is the go-to system.

Myth 5) AV means some people get two votes

No.  With AV everyone gets one vote. The difference

is that AV gives you a vote that really counts and more of a say on who

your local MP is. If your first choice gets knocked out your vote is

transferred to your second preference.  Whether you just vote 1 for your

favourite candidate or list a preference for every candidate on the

ballot only one vote will be counted.  

If you go to the chip shop, and order cod and chips but they are out

of cod, and you choose pie and chips instead, you have still only had

one meal.

Myth 6) AV means more hung parliaments

No. Hung parliaments are no more likely with AV. And as you might have noticed First Past the Post has not given Britain any special immunity to hung parliaments.

Britain has experienced hung parliaments in the 1920s, 1970s and in

2010, and had periods in the 1950s, 1960s and 1990s where a single party

was unable to effectively govern alone. Canada, which uses First Past

the Post, has permanent hung parliaments. Australia uses AV, and has

returned its first hung parliament in 38 elections.

Hung parliaments occur if enough voters support a third party. AV

gives voters a greater say over candidates in their constituency. How

they vote is up to them.

Myth 7) AV means more tactical voting

No. AV simply eliminates the need for it. Why should

we have to abandon the party we actually support, to prevent the party

we least support getting in? The dilemma facing millions of voters is

often characterised as the choice between “voting with your head or your

heart”. AV allows people to do both.

AV offers an honest vote. It gives everyone a chance to vote

sincerely for the candidates they really want knowing their vote can go

further.

Myth 8) AV weakens the constituency link

No. AV keeps the link and makes it stronger. Politicians like to talk about their constituency link. And a lot of them seem to enjoy it a lot more than the voters.

Many of our MPs currently have a pretty dodgy link to their

constituents. Barely a third of MPs can speak for the majority of their

voters. AV strengthens the link by giving people the MPs they actually

voted for. AV forces complacent MPs to take heed of the interests of

their constituents because their jobs depend on it.

Myth 9) AV forces you to give a second preference

No. You can vote for as few or as many candidates as you like. AV gives you the freedom to vote sincerely for any number of candidates you feel are up to the job.

You aren’t forced to vote for any candidate you don’t want. If you

only want to support one candidate you can. Just mark an ‘X’ as you did

before.

Myth 10) AV means you end up with the least worst candidate

No. First Past the Post just lets in winners that most of voters didn’t want.

AV ensures a winning candidate has to work harder and go further to

secure support from a majority. That’s what’s needed to be ‘best’, and

may explain why politicians are so keen on AV when electing their own…

When Hollywood recently dumped First Past the Post for AV, they

didn’t change the wording on the statuette to Academy Award for Least

Worst Picture. They wanted a ‘Best Picture’ winner that could deliver on

that promise.

Myth 11) But First Past the Post is a British tradition…

Our parliament is not a museum. There has always been evolution in

our politics, and today AV is the logical next step - an ‘upgrade’ to

First Past the Post.

The secret ballot, votes for women, and votes for working people were

all innovations once, and met with opposition. These changes didn’t rip

up the rule book, but they were necessary to improve the way we do

politics.

Voters aren’t looking for a revolution. They’re looking for a simple change that preserves and improves on what’s come before.

WHAT's WRONG WITH 'FIRST PAST THE POST'?

Supporters of the status quo like to say “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

It’s a healthy attitude to take. And 100 years ago it might even have been true of First Past the Post.

But our voting system had its day. It worked when a few million

voters had to choose between two parties. In the 21st Century voters

have moved on, but the rules of politics haven’t.

First Past the Post’s supporters like to describe it as simple and

robust. But it’s a blunt instrument - an analogue system in a digital

age. And it’s time for an upgrade.

Failing the test of fairness

First Past the Post fails the basic test of fairness, by letting many MPs speak for the majority with support from the few.

The system has also meant that half of the seats in the UK are

effectively ‘safe’ and are unlikely to ever change hands, effectively

giving their MPs jobs for life. This easily leads to complacency and

simply taking voters for granted. And we all saw the results of that in

the MPs’ expenses scandal.

Is it any wonder why so many voters feel there is little point in

voting? The result can appear a foregone conclusion unless you live in

one of the few communities where there’s a close contest. Even then

voters can end up having to vote tactically to stop one party rather

than voting positively for what they really believe in.

AV redresses the balance. AV gives voters more of a say and forces

candidates to work harder to ensure they have the backing of most voters

in their constituency. Divisive or complacent candidates would tend to

do badly - which is how it should be.

Defending the indefensible

First Past the Post’s defenders have a hard job on their hands. The

system fails each and every test even its own advocates have set up.

• The most popular candidate wins?

  It’s essential

  we have a legitimate voice speaking for us in parliament. But under

  First Past the Post being popular just means having one more vote than

  the next guy.

  At present election ‘winners’ are all too often

  opposed by the vast majority of voters. In some seats 7 out of every 10

  voters wanted other candidates, but their views are ignored.

• A strong constituency link?

  MPs are required to

  represent our views in parliament. A real constituency link is vital for

  them to do their jobs effectively.

  A constituency link comes

  with a real connection to the voters that put them in power. With so

  many MPs lacking even a basic mandate from their voters, any claims to a

  constituency link under First Past the Post look laughable.

• Delivering strong government?

  Voters delivered a hung parliament in 2010 under First Past the Post, and not for the first time.

• Kicking out unpopular governments?

  In just 1

  election in 100 years has a government with a working majority been

  replaced by a government with a working majority from another party.

  Edward

  Heath’s Conservatives did it in 1970, but no other party leader has

  managed it because it’s nigh on impossible for voters to ‘kick the

  rascals out.’

  Under First Past the Post majority governments

  appear to stay in power until they die in office, until their majorities

  are worn down, or they’re replaced by minority or coalition

  governments.

• A guardian against extremism?

  First Past the

  Post offers no protection against extremism. In town halls across

  Britain BNP councillors have won power opposed by the vast majority of

  mainstream voters. It’s the same trick they hope to repeat at

  Westminster, perhaps explaining their support for a ‘No’ vote…

  Anything’s possible when you only need 3 out of 10 voters on your side.

• One person, one vote?

  With First Past the Post all votes are not created equal.

  Parties steer well clear of the ‘safe seats’ the system creates,

  because they know those elections can’t ever be won or can be won

  without lifting a finger. Either way it’s simply not worth the effort.

  Instead

  it’s in the few seats where the winner isn’t known where politicians do

  all they can to win. And the result? A handful of lucky voters in these

  marginal seats decide our elections.

Hope this helps!

In my view you have ask yourself some simple questions: "Am I happy with the calibre of MP that the FPTP system, over the years, has delivered to me? Am I happy with successive governments which have got this country into 4 TRILLION pounds of debt....a debt so massive that future generations will be paying it off? To me its a no-brainer....almost any voting system should be better than the one we've got. The coming referendum is a golden opportunity, right here in Nailsea, to send a message to those who have served this country so badly.

TH