Yes or no

[altariel]

OK, f'listers, let rip. In 100 words or less, and without reference to the other case, tell me why I should vote either 'yes' or 'no' to the following question:

"Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the 'alternative vote' system instead of the current 'first past the post' system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?"

Non-UK perspectives welcome.

Comments

[azalaisdep.livejournal.com]

Just going back to the "horse-trading" argument for a moment... thinking about this some more, it strikes me that we currently have a government which, after an FPTP election, was formed as a result of outright horse-trading, and which nobody voted for as such. Had we conducted the last general election under AV, we would at least have known whether the nation at large would have preferred a Labour-LibDem coalition or a Tory-LibDem coalition.

(We probably still wouldn't have a government with a mandate for what it then proceeded to do, because none of the main parties was even remotely up-front about the degree of cuts they would be imposing and where they would impose them, but that's a different discussion...)

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Having now looked into the figures, I think the "horse-trading" argument against AV is a red herring. I think AV will deliver majority governments at least as often as FPTP. There's an established process under FPTP for forming coalition governments (who can deliver majority government which is therefore able to pass legislation) which I don't imagine would change much under AV. So the horse-trading will continue (as it does within factions within parties anyway), and presumably happen as infrequently as it does under FPTP (every thirty years or so).

ETA: All of which leads me back to my original position: why bother?

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

ETA: All of which leads me back to my original position: why bother?

Surely because, while imperfect, it's a slightly less blunt instrument that FPTP*, and will produce a parliament slightly more representative of people's preferences - and that's what democracy is surely meant to be about, rather than engineering things to get the outcomes we personally happen to like. Also that it's the first step to having the choice of something less blunt again, whereas a No vote will shut the door on that for generations to come.

The fact that all the right-wing red tops have come out against it should also give quite a good clue as to which way Jesus would vote.

* I admit I don't really understand this phrase - since there isn't any "post" that gets passed (for example, like have a majority of votes). It should really be called the "More votes than anyone else" system, or MVTAE.