The UK currently elects MPs under a system known as 'first past the post' (FPTP). With FPTP, you vote by putting a cross next to the candidate you want to vote for, and the person who gets the most votes wins, regardless of how many people have voted against him/her. For example, my MP received 42.7% of votes cast in the 2010 election. This meant that 57.3% of those who voted in my constituency didn't want the candidate who won. How can this be fair? Also, the last election in which the party who won the most number of seats AND received an absolute majority of the votes cast took place in, er, 1931. So in every general election since then, the party who gained the most seats has not received an absolute majority of the votes cast. This is not fair, it is not just, and it should not happen again.
Now, how does the 'alternative vote' (AV) system work? Despite claims made by the 'NO' campaign, it's actually very simple. You have a list of candidates, and you rank as few or as many of them as you like in order of preference. The first preference votes are counted, and if a candidate has at least 50% of the votes, then he or she is elected. If, however, no candidate has a majority, then the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated, and his/her second preference votes (if there are any) are distributed among the other candidates. This carries on until one candidate has at least 50% of the votes, and he/she is duly elected.
So, which system is better? FPTP is simple to use, and it has been used in this country for years. But, as I mentioned previously, governments have been elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. It's a flawed system, and MPs can get elected into safe seats for life without having to do sod-all. AV means that instead of focusing on a select group of voters, candidates will have to work harder in order to gain 50% of the votes of the electorate, which is surely a good thing.
The campaigns have been bitter at times, but one thing I want to draw your attention to is this. The 'NO' campaign claim that AV is too difficult for people to understand. How dare they insult so many people! Yes, AV does take a little bit more work in writing numbers instead of inserting a cross into one box, but surely, to improve our democracy, it's a price worth paying! Also, the 'NO' campaign claim that Australia, one country that uses AV, wishes to abolish it, but several Australians have said that there is no intention to abolish it, and many support it! The 'NO' campaign have said that to have new voting machines will cost at least £250m. Machines to vote? I'm sorry. All you need to use to vote under AV is a pencil! That's all you need! Oh, and to be on the electoral register, but that's another matter. David Cameron wants to keep FPTP. BUT (you'll like this) he was elected under a form of AV! All three of the main party leaders were elected under forms of AV! So how can Cameron criticise a system under which he was elected as leader of the Tories? I may not know much about politics, but surely this means that he's criticising how he was elected, meaning he think he shouldn't have been elected? Confused? So am I! The 'NO' campaign state that AV will mean more votes for extremist parties, such as the BNP. It won't. Many people dislike the BNP, and it is very likely that under AV, they'd fare even worse. Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, has come out in staunch criticism of AV. He wants proportional representation (PR), which is when people cast one vote for a party (who issue a list of candidates), and the number of winners per party is decided by the share of the vote that they received. Why does Nick Griffin want PR? Well, put it this way. In the 2009 European Parliament elections, the BNP got 2 seats. And what system was used for the European elections? PR! And, in the 2010 UK election, they received 563,743 votes in 338 constituencies - 1.9% of the vote, and the fifth highest amount of votes cast - but failed to win any seats. Of course Griffin wants PR - he wants his pathetic, racist policies to worm their way into the British public. But they're not going to. Millions of people know what the BNP stand for. Their official Facebook group has hundreds of thousands less members than one of the largest groups against them!
I've detailed why you shouldn't vote to keep FPTP (and if you have already voted to keep FPTP, then shame on you!), but why do I believe that you should vote for AV? I may have stated this already, but candidates will have to work harder to gain voter approval. With AV, you won't have to vote tactically in order to try and keep a certain party out of power (another criticism of FPTP) - you can vote for who you really want in power, and put those you don't want at the bottom of your preference list (or not rank them at all, but I VERY strongly advise that you rank all candidates available to you). You can vote for as many or as few candidates as you like. AV is NOT confusing! It's a simple system, but one that will bring big changes to the political landscape for years to come. The 'YES!' campaign state on their website that "Some people have a very low estimation of the British public." - and how true that is! AV won't, as stated, help the BNP. Under AV, a broad support base is needed, and the BNP don't have this in the vast majority of areas. Yes, FPTP is tried and tested, but so is AV. It's used in national elections in Australia, Fiji and another country that I can't remember the name of. People use it in businesses, charities, trade unions. It's used to elect political leaders. The Speaker of the House of Commons is elected by a form of AV. Highly important roles in the Houses of Parliament use AV. You still have one vote, but you have more of a say with that vote in who your MP is. The link between elector and MP is kept, perhaps even strengthened, because candidates have to reach out to more voters, in the hope that they will get a wider base for support. Do you want to know how they vote for the Best Picture award for the Oscars? They use AV! FPTP may be a British tradition, but it is important that we change politics. Think of when ballots became secret (in the past, you had to openly declare who you voted for. Now, you can still tell people who you voted for if you want to, but that choice is at YOUR discretion). Think of when normal, working-class people got the vote. Think of when women finally got the vote in the 1900s! These changes were necessary to improve how we do politics. I want an improvement on the current system, and AV is, I believe, a step in the right direction. Oh, and there's the small matter of the fact that the 'NO' campaign have not published a list of all their donors, but the 'YES' campaign have. Why? I don't know for certain, but transparency in politics is key. This is one reason why people are disillusioned with politics, and especially since the expenses scandal in the summer of 2009.
So if you haven't voted yet, then I urge you to do so as soon as possible. Our current electoral system is flawed, and AV fixes the vast majority of those flaws. Vote YES, and you will have a greater say in who your MP is. Vote YES, and MPs will have to work harder. Vote YES, and electoral reform will continue. If you vote NO, then our chance for electoral reform will be gone, and there probably won't be another chance for a generation.
Make the right choice. Vote YES today.
