Our voting system: A cancer at the heart of politics

It seems extraordinary that people are not more excited about being given the chance to change our voting system, especially as it comes just 2 years after the expenses scandal, which proved undeniably the degree to which MPs take our votes for granted. And the reason they take our votes for granted is because our current voting system allows them to do so. The 5th May represents a fantastic opportunity to change our entire system of politics, to make our MPs more accountable and to give ourselves choice.

It is ironic that while we continually value choice in our everyday lives - the choice of cheeses at the supermarket or of gas supplier for example - we seem unconcerned that, when it comes to choosing our government, we have almost no choice. It inevitably comes down one of three options: vote for the incumbent candidate, vote against them by selecting their nearest rival, or have a wasted vote. In fact, the reality is worse than that, because we end up voting tactically in order to keep out candidates we dislike. So we end up voting, not for candidates, but against them - all due to the inadequacies of our current voting system.

With everyone voting negatively to keep out candidates, the candidates themselves end up campaigning negatively, seeking to gain votes by destroying the reputation of the other candidates. Thus we end up with negative, bitchy campaigns which systematically avoid discussing how to improve life for the voters - again, purely because of the voting system.

AV fixes that by getting rid of the need for tactical voting. You purely put the candidates in the order that you prefer them, and the system takes care of the rest. It is that simple - literally as simple as 1,2,3 - allowing voters the full choice of candidates and finally giving us the kind of choice that we’ve taken for granted in supermarkets for years.

Not surprisingly, given that lack of choice benefits them, the main political parties have been putting about a number of lies about AV. The main one is that it brings about weak, coalition governments. The best answer to that is to look at Australia, where types of AV have been in use since 1918, and yet the last hung parliament (before the current one) was 1940! The other lie is that full Proportional Representation is a more democratic system, which is fine in theory. In practice it turns out that, because it uses list systems controlled by the parties, full PR results in power moving to the political parties themselves, rather than the voters. Italy has found, to its cost, that no matter who they vote for, the same political clique keep power.

The truth is that AV is actually the best system available, bringing choice and power to voters while delivering stable governments. It also has the key strength of having one MP who, dependent on our votes, actually has to listen to us.

Our current electoral system is a cancer at the heart of our politics - sucking away choice and ideas and replacing them with negativity and vitriol. The only conceivable reason to vote ‘No’ on the 5th May is if you work for one of the main political parties. If you’re a voter, the choice is obvious - to vote ‘Yes’ and do away with a terrible system that has given rise to bad politics and MPs that take us for granted. It is, quite literally, a once in a lifetime opportunity: Vote Wisely.

12 Reasons to Vote For AV

I’ve not seen anyone actually list the reasons why you should vote for AV, so here they are:

1. Removes wasted votes. Under AV you can ensure that your vote is kept alive after your first (or even second or third) choice candidate is eliminated, so your vote is only wasted if you choose to keep your list of alternate candidates short.
2. Eliminates tactical voting. You may not actually be aware that you are voting tactically, but choosing how to vote in First Past The Post (FPTP) elections is pretty simple: you vote for the main candidate or their closest rival. Any other vote is wasted, so you don’t seriously consider it. Hence you are voting tactically - to support the main candidate or get them out -  rather than trying to select the candidate that appeals to you most. Most voters mentally rule out all of the fringe options, however attractive, as they know that the FPTP system will never allow it.
3. Choice. As pointed out in (2), FPTP realistically gives you a choice of only two options - for the main candidate or against them. AV finally gives you the freedom to choose the candidate you want, knowing that your selection will still be used even if your first choice is eliminated. Of course giving voters choice gives them power (including the power to remove unpopular MPs regardless of their party) which seems to be the reason that many politicians are against it.
4. Majority rule. Under FPTP the winner is elected by the largest minority. Under AV the winner needs the support of the majority of the voters. This is crucial, as it means that to win a candidate has to reach out beyond their core support and win substantial approval across the board. In 2005, Tony Blair’s government was re-elected with just 21.6% of the votes of the total electorate.
5. Thwarts extremists. Because the winner needs 50% support, AV makes it pretty much impossible for those with extreme and divisive policies to get elected. FPTP can actually help them. The French Presidential Election of 2002 provides a great example. Under FPTP (i.e. using the first vote results only), the National Front would have been just 3% away from winning, but the second vote showed that they would have been 32% away from winning under AV as their total support never exceeded 18%. If we don’t select AV, there is a significant chance that the FPTP system will deliver a BNP MP in the next few years.
6. Reduces disaffection with politics. Many, many people say that it’s not worth voting because there is no point to it: their vote has no effect. This is very worrying as a large ‘disaffected class’ can be destabilising to society, resulting in problems such outbreaks of rioting (as we’ve recently seen in London and Bristol). Since AV removes the wasted votes, those people are much more likely to vote, be involved with the democratic process, and channel their energies through that.
7. Makes MPs work harder for our votes. Because there is more choice and they need 50% approval, MPs in many seats can no longer take for granted that wearing the right rosette will guarantee their election. Thus they will have to listen harder to the wishes of their constituents and pay more attention when the government is doing something unpopular with the majority of the people. Consider whether the expenses scandal would have happened if MPs had to be more mindful of the opinion of their electorate.
8. Encourages positive campaigning. Because the voter currently has a choice from only two options, the candidates have an incentive to indulge in dirty tricks and smear campaigns - anything that discourages people from voting for an opponent can be of benefit. Under AV bad-mouthing another is less likely to directly benefit a candidate since the choice is more sophisticated, and it may well result in both those candidates involved losing out to third-parties. This hasn’t happened in Australia for one good reason: the voters have kept the two party system at federal level, and wherever voters only have two real options, there will be a tendency to campaign negatively.
9. Consistency. AV keeps everything else about our democracy the same - the geographical constituencies, one MP who is directly responsible to you because he/she needs your vote, etc. The only parts that change are the way we mark the voting card and how those votes are counted.
10. Simple as 1,2,3. In exactly the same way as you would say to someone going to the shops “Get me shallots, or failing that onions”, you list the candidates you like in your order of preference. Your vote is given to your first choice candidate, and remains with them - unless they are eliminated through lack of support. In that case then your vote is moved to your second choice, and so on through the rest of your choices in subsequent recounts. You only have one vote - but it respects your preferred alternatives if your favoured candidate is eliminated.
11. Backwardly compatible. If you wish, you can use the AV system exactly the same as FPTP: you just put ‘1’ against the candidate that you want to vote for and leave the rest blank. Your vote will be treated exactly the same as it would have been under FPTP and will just be thrown in the bin if your candidate is eliminated. In Australia, enough people vote like this that that there is actually a term for it - ‘Voting above the line’.
12. Voters decide whether to have a two-party or multiparty system. Unlike FPTP, which effectively forces a two-party system on the voters, or Proportional Representation which ensures multi-party coalition government, AV can result in either, depending on the public. Australia has a two-party system federally, but  other parts of their government are multi-party coalitions. The choice is made by the voters which, after all, is what democracy is supposed to be about.