I’ve visited http://www.yestofairervotes.org today to check out why I apparently should vote ‘Yes’ to a supposedly fairer system of votes. Whilst I agree on the face of it, AV looks attractive to voters, I don’t actually think that it is fairer than the current First Past the Post (FPTP) system. My reason comes down to my suspicion that ‘fairer’ for most people means ‘what I want’. Check out the website if you want an explanation of AV, I won’t do one here.
Interestingly the “Yes for Fairer Votes” state that FPTP is unfair because you only vote for one person and that two-thirds of MPs get into parliament with less than 50% of the voters support. Let’s look at that.
If you’re in a constituency with four candidates which is say normally a labour strong hold, this isn’t going to change under AV. Not really. In solid seats either way things will hardly change. You do the maths, only in seats where the candidates are reasonably equal will there be any difference. Have a look at this article from the Guardian, it shows that the results would not have been that much different overall. Take the results with a pinch of salt, but I truly don’t see what great difference AV makes.
Also Interestingly the “Yes for Fairer Votes” states “The Alternative Vote takes what works with First Past the Post and improves on it.”. So FPTP isn’t all bad apparently, but then it also states that FPTP fails the basic test of fairness. It then says that FPTP fails each and every test, and yet despite AV being based on FPTP that apparently is OK … eh?
I like FPTP for the following reason: I am forced to make a decision. No get out, no wishy–washy pandering to the people who don’t get their way. Take it or leave it. I don’t always get the Government or MP I want, or the council, but you don’t get me bleating about how unfair the voting system is. I’ve wanted a government with the beliefs, grit and determination of the first two Thatcher Governments for years, I ain’t going to get it though. What I do get with FPTP is I normally get a Government with a mandate and I’d rather have a Government with plan and a belief, than a Coalition which trades away it’s convictions and principals for a chance to hold power.
The “Yes for Fairer Votes” by the way, conveniently mixes up Hung Parliaments and Coalitions, stating that Australia have only had one Hung Parliament in 38 elections, I don’t know where they got that from, but Australia have had loads of Coalition Governments, Robert Menzies for example was heading a Minority Coalition Government when war broke out, John Howard led a Coalition Government in 1996. They also state that that Canada have permanent Hung Parliaments whilst using a FPTP System. But the Canadian House of Commons Web Site states “Coalition governments have been rare in Canadian history.”, which is true but they have been ruled by Minority Governments for years and years, and I say again, I’d rather be ruled by a party that sticks to it’s principles, rather than a conglomerate of people, hell-bent on political power at any cost, forging a Coalition of convenience.
Would I rather have a Labour Government now than the Coalition? Yes if they had enough to form a Minority Government, I wouldn’t complain. Would I rather Cameron ditch Clegg and rule with a Minority Government? Absolutely and twice on Sundays. Why? Because then the government might stick to it’s principals more. Forging a Coalition has probably done more damage to the LibDems than any other action in recent years with accusations of ‘selling out’, yet this kind of deal would be common place in Coalition Governments which would be more commonplace under AV. Yet people want more Coalitions? I don’t get it …
I would like one change made to the FPTP system however, and that is a box which says “None of the above”. If this figure reaches 50% then the election should be held again, and the candidates have to run again and pay for their submission again. That might help motivate the candidates. It also might encourage people who decide not to vote to actually vote and take part, as the most common thing I hear is “I don’t want to vote for any of them” and not “I prefer him first, him second, him third …” and so forth. Having to stand for re-election again might encourage candidates to work hard and listen to their voters a bit more.
So I will be voting “No to AV” simply because it does not improve the voting system or make it any fairer, it only makes it more likely that once again trying to please everybody will result in it pleasing nobody. But if, as I suspect, the vote will be for ‘Yes’ again, you won’t hear me belly-aching about how my vote didn’t count or how unfair it all is, just because I was on the loosing side …
Cheers
Dave Mc
Leave a comment