It’s the big day at the polls tomorrow where the poor souls of the British public will have to vote for who they want as their local councillor and of course that pesky referendum on the voting system.
Yes it’s the AV referendum, the debate that swept across the nation and was promptly swept under the carpet. In the end not many people seem to care about the issue, which is quite sad considering just how dramatic a change it would be if we were to adopt the Alternative Voting system.
Britain has had the First-Past-The-Post system for years upon years, and its fairness has frequently come into question, mainly by the Liberal Democrats. They feel that AV would be a fairer system, pointing to the fact that a lot of seats created by the First-Past-The-Post system are gained by an MP who attained less than half of the electorate’s vote. AV means an elected MP would need to secure over 50% of the votes. Ironically I doubt 50% of the electorate will even turn up to vote.
Britain has a bit of a problem with voter apathy, nobody seems to care, or at least they feel all politicians are the same; something that has only been reinforced by a coalition government between a centre-left party and a centre-right one. Saying that though, it is quite sad to see so many people dissent from voting, especially knowing just what people have been through to secure such a privilege. I don’t mind if people turn up to the polling station, fold up their paper with no crosses and put it in the box, at least that shows they care enough about democracy to turn up, but not bothering entirely is a depressing reflection on British society. Perhaps Australia’s compulsory voting system should be looked into.
Incidentally Australia has been in the limelight of late since they are one of the few countries who employ the AV system in their general elections. The No campaign has been quick to point at the fact that only three nations use AV: the Aussies, Papua New Guinea and Fiji. I really dislike this tactic, firstly it is hideously disrespectful to the three nations in question who have been made out to be tiny inferior nations to us, but also because it insinuates that First-Past-The-Post is this fair and mighty system that is a gleaming star in the democratic world. When it really isn’t.
Given enough time First-Past-The-Post will result in a two party system, the Americans with the Democrats and Republicans for example. Britain itself has also succumb to this fate with the Tories and Labour having a massive majority in the house of commons. No wonder the Lib Dems want a change. Of course the No campaign would have you believe a two party system is a good thing, plucking out the old chestnut that AV will bring about more hung parliaments. The irony of a campaign using that argument while their First Past The Post system just created a coalition is not lost on me. As it turns out AV makes little difference, since 1910 Australia have produced just 2 hung parliaments. Britain, since 1929, has produced the exact same number of them.
The two campaigns have been up and running for a while now, and to be honest they haven’t exactly helped matters much. Unfortunately the people telling us which way we should vote have ulterior motives in mind. The Lib Dems for example want to see the AV system brought in since it would allow them to claim more seats in parliament. On the flip-side the Conservatives want to keep the First-Past-The-Post system as it keeps their seats safe and hence they won’t lose many to the Lib Dems.
So where does that leave the Labour party? Well they seem to be split down the middle with some backing AV due to simply being in opposition and some backing First-Past-The-Post because it means their seats remain safe. Labour leader Ed Miliband however, is backing AV.
The problem with this is that the public don’t know which information to listen to, seeing that nobody is neutral, nobody is unbiased, and nobody seems to care about them. Unless you’re a die hard member of a political party you probably won’t know which way to vote. These campaigns should be run as follows: the No campaign simply shows you the facts about First-Past-The-Post, if you like that system over the AV system, you vote No. Meanwhile the Yes campaign shows you the facts about the Alternative Voting system, if you prefer it, vote Yes. Sounds simple. If only they were conducted that way.
The thing is, AV is hardly a revolution compared to First-Past-The-Post, but it is one meagre step towards proportional representation. It’s the same system at heart but with a minor change that means the MPs need over 50% of the vote.
I think I have just about made my decision, and I’ve decided to vote Yes to AV. Why? Well for two main reasons. My first reason is that I firmly believe the First-Past-The-Post system is unfair. The third party can achieve half the votes of the winning party and yet receive far far less than half the seats. AV is no earth-shattering change, however it is fairer, all be it slightly.
If we vote No then this whole debate will be put on the shelf for years, decades even, and it will not be revisited. Voting AV shows that the public know First-Past-The-Post is unfair, and given the choice they’ll choose the slightly more fair AV. This keeps the debate alive, and can result in further change and modification.
The second big reason for me choosing to vote Yes has been the tactics of the No campaign. It really is an absolute disgrace. They have peppered their leaflets, posters, and broadcasts with lies and slander to make AV look like the worst system in the world, so bad it kills children, apparently. Yep, they went there.
Everyone has seen the posters. The one of an apparent soldier needing a bullet-proof vest instead of an Alternative Voting System. No, what he needs is to see some action, the guy looks like he’d be more at home on the cover of Men’s Health magazine. Then there’s the policeman who needs backup not an Alternative Voting System. And of course the newborn who needs a new cardiac facility not an Alternative Voting System.
All the talk has been about money. Apparently it’s going to cost £250 million to implement AV. This figure is complete and utter fabrication. Firstly in incorporates the price of the referendum itself, which is daft, and they have simply made-up the rest of the figures, not really knowing the cost of these fancy machines that might not even be needed in the end. I’m not really sure how they’ve gotten away with it. Cost is an issue yes, but you can’t just make up facts. It’s just wrong, as is putting: “None of your taxes have been used to print this leaflet” on their propaganda, suggesting that the Yes campaign has used your taxes.
Based on this logic, if the overall vote says No and we keep First-Past-The-Post we’ll need another referendum, because we need to figure out just who will get the £250 million! Will it be the soldier, the baby, or the rank outsider: the policeman? Maybe we can do it using AV! Well I think it’s safe to say the policeman would be eliminated first but that means we have to choose who will die! The brave soldier or the poor baby. Will you save the baby, leaving the soldier to die in battle, leaving us open to further attack? Or will you save the soldier and leave the poor battling infant to die? You’re killing the baby? You heartless bastard! How do you sleep at night!? Okay I’ve been playing a little too much Mass Effect.
Another stupid argument that’s been brought up by the No campaign is the one that states that Britain is too thick to know just how AV works. Yes because it’s absolute rocket science isn’t it!? It’s so simple, making it sound difficult just to put people off is not the way to be running a democratic referendum. You simply vote in preference, let’s say four candidates are running: Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the BNP; and your preferences are as follows, Conservatives first, the Liberal Democrats second, Labour third and the BNP fourth. Here comes the tricky part so I hope you’re paying attention. You take the ballot paper that has Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the BNP written on it. Now, next to Conservatives you put the number 1, next to Labour you put the number 3, next to the Liberal Democrats you put the number 2, and next to the BNP you put the number 4. Claiming this is difficult is insulting to our intelligence and just a smidge patronising. It is not a bloody Rubik’s cube!
Okay, so based on that last example you might be thinking: “Oh no! I‘ll have to vote for the BNP!” Well calm down, you don’t. You don’t have to put preference for all. You can leave out the BNP should you wish, or the Conservatives, or Labour, anyone you want. You can just vote for one party if you like, no one‘s holding a gun to your head.
Subsequently, the BNP have been a big part of the referendum, with both campaigns claiming voting for the other will allow the BNP to thrive. That isn’t confusing at all now is it? Turns out the BNP don’t want AV. Just for the record. That’s a nice boost to the Yes campaign.
In the end of the day this has simply come down to a fight between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, with a lot of infighting and tensions within the coalition occurring. Some people will no doubt just vote No simply to punish Nick Clegg which will suit the Conservatives just fine. I hope people don’t do this. Forget political parties, vote for the system you deem fairest.
The ironic thing about all this of course is that though the Tories, who are quick to slate the AV system, actually use it to elect their party leader. So if it’s good enough for them, why isn’t it good enough for us? Well the answer’s obvious: it doesn’t suit them.
Before you vote tomorrow just look at the facts, look at what First-Past-The-Post offers, and then look at what the Alternative Voting System offers. Decide which you think is the better system and vote accordingly. Don’t listen to people telling you which way to vote, use your own brain to decide.
And no, you can’t vote maybe.
No comments:
Post a Comment