The Truth About AV

In little over two weeks' time the country (or half of it) (or less than half of it) will head to the ballot box for a vote about voting. It's only the second referendum in the history of UK politics, the first having addressed the question of whether to remain in the EU (then the Common Market) back in 1975. It's unlikely that, should the country vote NO on May 5, there will ever (and certainly in our lifetime) be another chance for real political reform.

But the campaigns about AV and the representation of the choice facing the public have had almost no foundation in facts whatsoever. Both sides of the argument have twisted statistics and rhetoric to suit their particular needs, and at the majority of points those needs have been politically motivated - that is to say that the Tories don't want AV because it would hurt them, and the Lib Dems do want it because it would help them, and Labour don't know whether they want it because it's not clear how it would affect their representation.

The NO campaign have even tried to argue that the BNP would vote YES to AV even though the BNP have declared their support for the NO campaign because they know AV would hurt them. This is the most extreme example of the way that voters have been taken for idiots. So this post exists to throw the masks off the arguments that don't make sense from both sides.

A simple, tried & tested alternative. (YES campaign)

No. The YES campaign tries to use this as a way to make people feel safer about the potential upheaval of political decision-making, when in order to achieve that it should instead concentrate on the positives of such upheaval and the similarities (of which there are many) between FPTP and AV. Just because AV is used in leadership campaigns does not mean it is tried and tested in democratically electing parliaments. It is used in Australia, one good example, but it is hardly the overwhelming choice of Western democracies.

AV is costly. Schools and hospitals, or the Alternative Vote. (NO campaign)

No. Of all the untruths told in these campaigns this one is arguably the most irresponsible. The referendum is already happening so the cost of it is not a reason to vote NO. The electronic voting systems mentioned in the NO campaign's literature are not planned and there are even suggestions of legal action being taken against this claim. This statement also greatly devalues the importance of democracy.

Shutting down extremism. Extremists can get in by the back door under FPTP. (YES campaign)

No. Firstly, the use of the term 'extremism' is a terrible misnomer and reveals the real intention of using this as a fundamental argument: to make people scared that one of these systems makes it easy for the BNP to stroll into power. Neither of them does. Let's call 'extremism' what it really is: non-mainstream opinion. This includes the Greens (who I doubt many would label as 'extremists' in the stereotypical sense) and to some extent even the Lib Dems. Basically, the majority of people now who would vote for these parties but don't because it's a wasted vote in almost all constituencies (in that the party is never going to win a seat due to a core of Lab/Con/Lib supporters) can vote for that party under AV with the knowledge that in the likely scenario that the party doesn't win they can still express their preference between more mainstream parties. It remains to be seen how the introduction of AV in the long-term would affect fringe parties in the UK but it is difficult to argue that the BNP are more likely to win 30% of votes in a specific constituency from nowhere under FPTP.

AV is complex and unfair. (NO campaign)

No. This is the most offensive of all of these lies. AV is not complex. You choose candidates in order of preference until you no longer wish to choose candidates. So, so, so simple. If you don't understand that, you need to go back to school. The NO campaign have made huge waves by saying that under AV 'the loser can win'. What that means is simply smoke and mirrors: it simply means that under AV, the person that would win under FPTP doesn't always win in AV. Which is the whole point of this fucking referendum because there would be no point in choosing between 2 voting systems if the results of an election were the same under both.

Under AV, the only vote that really counts is Nick Clegg's. (NO campaign)

No. Australia uses AV and it doesn't have a coalition government every time it forms a new one. We have a coalition at the moment and it came from FPTP. The only reason this argument is being used is because Nick Clegg has been demonised - rightly or wrongly, who cares - because of his decisions as Deputy Prime Minister and the NO campaign think (perhaps rightly) that they can win a few extra % of the votes by associating him strongly with the YES campaign. Which sucks. Like both campaigns do in general. The end.