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

[strange-complex.livejournal.com]

‘Yes’, because AV allows voters to express detailed opinions on all candidates, without the distortion of tactical voting. The difference between a first preference and no ranking at all is real and meaningful under AV, and should make voters’ views much clearer. Also, in order to win under AV candidates have to secure the consensus support of a majority. This means candidates will need to reach out positively and appeal to everyone – not just the party faithful. It should mean that both campaigning and representation is taken more seriously, and that failure on either count will make (re)-election impossible.

(PS - it was more or less impossible not to make at least implicit reference to FPTP in the above, as this is inherently a comparative question. But I've done my best.)

[carl-allery.livejournal.com]

I can't really see the point of AV - if no candidate gets more than 50% of people's first choice, then whoever wins will still be the first choice of less than half the constituency. Seems to me it's wanting to have your cake and eat it, to vote for who you want and then to say, oh, no, I didn't really mean that, let me have it again. Doesn't work in chess, counts as cabbaging in rounders ... ;)

[communicator.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree with charlie but I am sure most of your commentators will take the other view. I think AV creates an artificial impression that candidates have been endorsed by voters who have simply ranked them as 'not as bad as some other candidate'. I think the aim of those keen to introduce AV it is to ensure permanent coalition government, which will remove political decision making to an arena of post-election stitch ups behind closed doors, and give them an alibi to roll back the NHS, universal education, minimum wage etc, which is against the interests and will of the majority.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a Canadian heading into our third federal election in 5 or 6 years, I am getting increasingly fed up with the consequences of a "first past the post" system here in Canada. It keeps producing results at odds with the expressed will of those who show up to vote, you see.

And when the subject of coalition government as an option comes up over here, the Harper Conservatives keep damning it as illegitimate if not illegal. Which, given the examples provided by the UK, Israel and Italy - among other nations - is patently ridiculous.

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

FPTP breaks when there are more than two candidates. AV is the minimal change that fixes this.

Under FPTP, many voters vote tactically: "My preferred candidate won't win, so I will vote for my second preference who can win", and so on. The problem is that the voter's knowledge of which candidates can/cannot win is limited and subject to error, based on previous election results and perhaps some knowledge of political changes since then. AV is essentially automatic tactical voting: if your preferred candidate genuinely cannot win this election, then your vote is automatically shifted to your next preference, and so on. It allows a voter to accurately express their preferences without risking wasting their vote.

(Yes, I've ignored "without reference to the other case" because the point of AV is to fix problems with FPTP, and I can't be arsed with the circumlocutions involved in discussing the advantages of the former without reference to the latter.)

[paranoidangel]

Vote yes because at least that way it'll make voting more exciting than just putting an x in a box with a blunt pencil.

Or alternatively, because you'll be voting on my birthday and I want to celebrate with a yes result.

I think both of those arguments trump any reasonably political reason.

[matildabj.livejournal.com]

Vote yes. Mainly because it's the first step down the road to full proportional representation. Voting 'no' because it's not 'proper' PR is defeating the object. No government is ever going to be brave enough to make the leap all the way all at once: one step at a time. And this is the first step.

Written without any reference to anything my former employers might have said on the subject...

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Yes, because a) it means not so many people will be disenfranchised by living in a safe seat; b) it allows you to express your nuanced opinion in a nuanced way (I've never found myself in complete agreement with any candidate); c) coalition government as a system shouldn't be judged by the current shower - it can be effective, and is a fair(er) reflection of the people's will (which is what democracy is meant to achieve). Yes, there will be horsetrading, but tactical voting is horsetrading too.

The downside is that it will please Nick Clegg.

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

I'm a yes, too. In a three-party vote it means I can make sure the one I least want to get in is right down at the bottom of my choices. I can vote according to my conscience and not have to worry about tactical voting.

[uitlander]

I'm a no. I think it will lead to endless coalitions, where no-one actually wins, and we'll get a lot of compromise decisions that no-one really wanted. Government by everyone's second or third choices in most instances, so the worst of all worlds.

[nwhyte]

Vote 'Yes'. The Alternative Vote is much more fun for the voter, and also removes the need to calculate tactically whether to use your entire vote to endorse a candidate who may not be your first choice.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

Yes. So that you can vote for the party you really want to get in, but if they get too few votes to be elected, you can still have an opportunity to make a difference with your second choice.

[parrot-knight.livejournal.com]

A yes, certainly. AV is not as good as a properly proportional system (I'd prefer a form of constituency-based STV as in the Republic of Ireland) but it should remove some of the distortions of FPTP. A successful move to AV would open the door to further reform a little way down the line, and also better reflect the country's real mood - which was probably not, for example, to deliver Thatcher landslides in 1983 and 1987, or Labour ones in 1997 and 2001.

[temeres.livejournal.com]

Yes, because although it'll make little difference in itself, it opens up the prospect of greater reform by slow degrees and the consequent re-enfranchisement of all those whose votes are effectively wasted in non-marginal constituencies. Like me.

[bill-leisner.livejournal.com]

American here, so I don't know enough specifics to tell you to vote yes or no. (And what little I know about British party politics is enough to know there's no comparison to the US's Republican/Democrat/Fringe Group of the Moment set-up.) That said, I don't like the idea of an alternate vote system because, in effect, it gives some people one vote, and some people more than one.

[wiseheart.livejournal.com]

I would, if I got the foggiest idea what you're talking about. ;)

Living in a country that's just about to dismantle democracy again certainly doesn't help...

[sallymn.livejournal.com]

I don't really understand what AV is - we have preferences, which is a headache but one I'm willing to have for the better representation we get - but as I understand it, this might be a first step in changing FPTP.

But then, I'm one of those strange folk who approve of compulsory voting, so....

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

Yes!

We use a version of the German system here (two votes per person: local candidate and party. What precipitated the change was a majority vote for Labour but National getting in.

Australia uses a preferential voting system; AV seems to be "single transferable vote", a cut-down version of that.

It beats FPTP because people's votes will count more. You do get more minor parties getting their due votes which can lead to major parties not having a clear majority and having to form coalitions; we’re used to that now.

[Edited down to 90 words after I saw the 100 or fewer stipulation] :-P

[shezan.livejournal.com]

No. Absolutely not. NO.

My case about to rest:

- Italy
- Israel
- French Fourth Republic
- Belgium.

I rest my valise.

[wormwood-7.livejournal.com]

Having lived in countries with both systems I am not sure if I am as enthusiastic about AV as some people in the UK. The argument against that after an election a government could be decided via "horse trading and political fixes" certainly has some truth to it. AV can work perfectly fine of course, but after years in the UK I am not as opposed to FPTP as I once was (and I am politically left of centre).

[toft-froggy.livejournal.com]

Thanks for making this post - good to see a variety of perspectives. It's helping me make up my mind.

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

You know, you could do a lot worse than to just read this:

Electoral Reform Society - Alternative Vote

[gfk88.livejournal.com]

Suggest vote yes. It's shades of grey, innit (mostly very dark shades, admittedly). Putting just one X feels horribly like suggesting there might be A Right Answer.

[azalaisdep.livejournal.com]

I'm going to vote yes, because as has been pointed out it should considerably reduce the safeness of many safe seats, thus re-enfranchising voters in said safe seats who don't support the previously "home-and-dry" candidate, and therefore might in the longer term increase turn-out and make our democracy a bit more genuinely democratic. In essence I'm with Iain: I think FPTP only really makes sense in a two-party system. And I think the horse-trading goes on now, only it goes on in terms of which candidates parties put up in which seats, and is therefore far less visible to the electorate at large than horse-trading post hoc on the basis of votes actually cast.

ETA: Damn, sorry, for someone who's been writing drabbles all month that was a shocking failure to keep to word-limit (114!)