Why I voted yes to AV

[lovingboth]

Having a postal vote in the referendum means I've already done this. Why?

AV is far from perfect but it is much, much better than the current system.

I am 49 and the only general election where my vote might actually have mattered was 1997: every other time, the only votes that mattered were the selection panel of the party whose 'safe seat' it was.

Apart from civic pride etc, there was no point to me voting because the result was a foregone conclusion and everyone I wanted to win was certain to lose.

I'd quite like that not to happen again. I don't mind so much everyone I wanted to win losing, it's the foregone conclusion that they would which stinks.

I've helped in more by-elections than I can remember, and it's easy to tell which were regarded as the safe seats because, Tory Berkshire or Labour suburb of Liverpool, the people there are ignored. That's why by-election shocks happen: for once, people think their vote matters. AV would mean that happens in far, far more places every election.

And to those who say it's too complicated, somewhere on Twitter, someone posted a link to a wonderful flowchart comparison of the two systems. It went something like:

AV (Alternative Vote, the proposed system)

1. In your mind, put the candidates in order.
2. Write that on the ballot paper. Done!

First Past the Post (the current system)

1. In your mind, put the candidates in order
2. Is the first one certain to win?
3. If they are certain to win, vote for them or don't bother voting (it won't change the result..) Done!
4. If they are not certain to win, do they have any real chance of winning?
5. If they have a real chance of winning, vote for them and hope. Done!
6. If they do not have a real chance of winning, who is next on your list who does?
7. If no-one, you might as well not vote. (You've been) done!
8. If there is someone, vote for them, holding your nose if necessary.
9. Hope you got it right and your first choice doesn't lose by one vote. Done!


_{Previously published as a comment elsewhere in a slightly different form, as they say at the start of all the best works :)}

Comments

[miss_s_b]

The problem with this is that the whole shenannigans under first past the post just applies to your second (and so on) prefs: You vote for who you really want to win for your first pref, but then you have to decide who you think is likely to win and if it's not your first pref, and you don't like the person likely to win, then you give your second pref to the candidate most likely to beat the person most likely to win... AV doesn't get rid of tactical voting, it simply subtly alters it.

It DOES reduce the safe seat problem, though, so on that basis I'll be voting yes too.

And hoping that STV is on the cards at some point in my lifetime.

[louis_mallow]

We have posters up in the windows but I'm sad to see it's just us, here.

What upsets me is that people whine about low turnout and especially young voters not voting. Guess what; they know it's not really a vote. They're smart enough to know a ticky-box for fun when they see one.

This leads me to my announcement post...

[twangman.livejournal.com]

The problem with this is that av assumes people want a second choice. Not all of us do. Nor when we vote do just vote for a particular mp, We vote on the polices of the party and if we think there leader would make a good pm.
How effective we think the candidate is in parliament or would be is just one part of the equation.
My vote will be NO. FPTP may not be perfect but it is better than this miserable little compromise.

[lovingboth]

Yes, I can see that for people saying

a) there is only one party they want to win and all others are equally bad, and

b) it doesn't matter if other people are deprived of indicating a second choice, because they don't want to

voting no is the sensible thing to do.

[missp2010.livejournal.com]

AV allows you to make as many choices as you want. You can cross one box only if you have no other choices, but if you DO have other choices you can number your first choice 1, your second choice 2, your third choice 3 etc etc. It's not restricting people who think there is only one party who deserves to win.

I found this page quite interesting: http://www.yestofairervotes.org/pages/av-myths

Hello someone seemingly looking for AV posts to comment on :)

[lovingboth]

I suspect that it's (b) that's the real issue here!

I'm more familiar with 'I don't want to, so you mustn't be allowed to' in relation to sexuality related things (especially sex work) but it clearly is not limited to that.