AV - Don't be fooled

The 5th May is drawing nearer and the times coming when we are going to have to make that all important decision. Yes or No to AV? I have no doubt that each side has its own benefits, but which one is better? Well, thats a hard question due to all the answers on the web being so opinionated. The main idea is that if you voted Conservative or Labour at the last General Election then you should be voting NO for AV but if you voted for any other party you should be voting YES for AV. You may now be thinking that you recently just voted for Conservative/ Labour but quite like the idea of a change in system. Well I am now going to tell you why that could be disastrous for your party.
The first problem with AV is that if you vote for either of the two main parties then your vote will quite simply only be counted once. To understand why that is a bad thing you have to visualise how AV works. AV is in effect a succession of run-off elections, with the loser being eliminated in each round. Everyone who voted for the loser, will have their second choice put back into the ring. This process will continue until a winner is found (to win you must get 50% of votes). This therefore means that anyone who voted for Conservative or Labour will not have their second preference votes added to the system, which is understandably unfair. This in turn uncovers a whole new problem, the person whom voted for an eliminated party ends up influencing the outcome. Parties that are most likely to be eliminated would be extremist parties such as 'BNP', hence revealing that the outcome to our next General Election would be decided upon by individual racist minorities. By giving extremist parties 'an extra vote' will end up making it virtually impossible for Conservative and Labour to win outright creating far more coalitions and split governments. This is where the NO campaign holds its main argument, that AV is simply unfair. They feel that the winner should be the candidate that comes first not the candidate that comes second or third. They go on to say that "we cant afford to let the politicians off the hook by introducing a loser's charter."
On the other hand, AV would force MPs to work harder to earn and keep our support. This is because at the moment all they have to do is secure 1 in 3 votes to be handed power, however with AV they would have to get 50% of the votes therefore needing to work "harder to win - and keep - your support". By ranking your MP's in order of preference you can have a "bigger say on who your local MP is." When its phrased like that AV doesnt sound all that bad (ensures that MPs are working harder and giving the voter a bigger say) but in actual fact how much of that is actually true? MP's probably will work harder but when they go on to say that you will have a "bigger say on who your local MP is" is ridiculous. As stated earlier, the majority of the population will be voting for Labour or Conservative not a minority party. Byinlarge It will only ever be the minority parties who have their second preference votes redistributed, revealing that we will not have any more of a say than in the First Past The Post system.

Well, there you have it. My slightly bias opinion on the matter of AV. Personally I believe thoroughly in saying NO to AV and backing First Past The Post because it has been tried and tested over the years and most importantly it is fair and simple. One other factor is that it will cost an additional £250 million to change to AV which should either be saved in a time of recession and debt or spent on matters of far more importance. An old farmer from Georgia once said "If it aint broke, dont fix it."


By Max Monteith