For Welsh people such as myself, this will be the second referendum we'll be voting for in 2011. The previous one was important to the country containing up to three million citizens, but this one on May 5th will effect United Kingdom as a whole. It is vital that as much people as possible will vote whether we would want to have a change in the voting system or not.
At the moment we use "First-Past-the-Post" (FPTP) system. In other words, put a simple "X" next to a political party an individual wishes to vote.
Now, as people like Nick Clegg suggest, a new voting system could be introduced. In other words, voting for parties in rank form. Let me give you nine good reasons why I will disagree with Clegg - again.
Reason One
Look at this diagram I produced courtesy of Paint. As you can see, the initial second place under our current system actually won the seat. Under the new system, the first party with 50%+ wins the seat.
In order to get 50%, in some situations, the parties will have to rely on the process of elimination. Each eliminator which was given "1" next to the party will have to distribute their points elsewhere.
Here's an example. Green Party above are last place and because Labour didn't get their 50% required. Green give their points away to those who the individual voted second place for, after voting Green. Still don't get it? Neither do a lot of people but the process of elimination continues and no vote will be equally distributed. Now we see the final result as the Conservatives winning the seat as they relied on people who voted them in 2nd, third or fourth.
Reason Two
Ranking all of the parties, in my eyes surely means that I'll be voting for every party? As a Labour supporter, I don't want to pick the likes of Ukip or BNP at all. I only support one party. Just because I can vote for those parties lower than others, it does not mean that I'll be satisfied with my vote. With the FPTP system, I'll be happy to vote for Labour and move on with my life without contemplating who I want to vote in 3rd or 4th. Alternative Vote is a waste of time whilst the FPTP is a two minute job, if that!
Reason Three
No one, and I mean no one will vote the main parties in the top two. Just imagine someone vote Labour first, then Conservatives second or vice versa. So we'll be expecting the likes of Green Party to fly high in the rankings and gain more seats. I know that's why they're voting "yes" but somehow I find it slightly unfair.
Reason Four
It is a complicated system. I will have to feel sorry for the people having to count the votes. Just imagine how long it will take if no one will get 50% or higher until the last count. They'll be there forever. I'm not wanting a delay in the results.
Reason Five
50% we can all agree is a number which we all want to see candidates gaining at the first shot but some constituancies have closer margins than others. I'm taking the above diagram as an example. 38% initially voted for Labour and 32% voted Conservatives. That surely means a convincing win for the Labour Party? 38% is still a good percentage, most people voted them out of the other parties voted, so what's the problem?
Reason Six
The smaller parties who in the past haven't had the seats they needed to demand decision in the House of Commons but now it seems as if they could determine who would be the next Prime Minister. Wow, that would be astonishing! We had Liberal Democrats picking David Cameron for the current PM and most of us aren't satisfied, that didn't work out well, did it? Look at the harsh cuts affecting most of us. I don't want smaller parties determine the outcome of the elections just because they're ranked second in some constituencies.
The Liberal Democrats surge in the election debates last year, the polls suggested they were more popular than Labour. The result suggested a Hung Parliarment and their 57 seats or so was enough to get Cameron at number 10.
Reason Seven
It baffles me when the "yes" campaign accuses the "no" campaign of being a strong-Tory alliance. Not true. 125 of 258 Labour MPs intend to vote "no". It maybe less than 50% of their MPs but it's not all Conservatives who want to keep the voting system the way it is.
Reason Eight
Nick Clegg is voting "yes" to benefit his party. Understandable. David Cameron is the same but with his "no" vote. Labour seems torn and this referendum appears to have divided the party. It may not benefit them in the long term but it baffles me why Ed Miliband intends to vote "yes". How would this benefit his party? Labour have won enough times under the current voting system to convince them that they could win the election.
I tweeted to Ed saying how would AV benefit his party? He failed to respond. Maybe he knows he's wrong?
My theory regarding BNP's decision to say "no". They are traditionalists and want to keep things British and FPTP maybe a step towards that direction. I don't know, I don't get them.
Reason Nine
Only three countries use the Alternative Vote in the whole wide world. Only three, out of 250+ countries. That has got to mean something. Even statistics show that these countries aren't overly satisfied by the way they vote. One of which is Fiji.
These are the reasons why I'm saying "no". I hope you have your own minds about this but saying "yes" might prove to be a little complicated and unnecessary. All we have to do is wait and see the result on May 6th.
At the moment we use "First-Past-the-Post" (FPTP) system. In other words, put a simple "X" next to a political party an individual wishes to vote.
Now, as people like Nick Clegg suggest, a new voting system could be introduced. In other words, voting for parties in rank form. Let me give you nine good reasons why I will disagree with Clegg - again.
Reason One
Look at this diagram I produced courtesy of Paint. As you can see, the initial second place under our current system actually won the seat. Under the new system, the first party with 50%+ wins the seat.In order to get 50%, in some situations, the parties will have to rely on the process of elimination. Each eliminator which was given "1" next to the party will have to distribute their points elsewhere.
Here's an example. Green Party above are last place and because Labour didn't get their 50% required. Green give their points away to those who the individual voted second place for, after voting Green. Still don't get it? Neither do a lot of people but the process of elimination continues and no vote will be equally distributed. Now we see the final result as the Conservatives winning the seat as they relied on people who voted them in 2nd, third or fourth.
Reason Two
Ranking all of the parties, in my eyes surely means that I'll be voting for every party? As a Labour supporter, I don't want to pick the likes of Ukip or BNP at all. I only support one party. Just because I can vote for those parties lower than others, it does not mean that I'll be satisfied with my vote. With the FPTP system, I'll be happy to vote for Labour and move on with my life without contemplating who I want to vote in 3rd or 4th. Alternative Vote is a waste of time whilst the FPTP is a two minute job, if that!
Reason Three
No one, and I mean no one will vote the main parties in the top two. Just imagine someone vote Labour first, then Conservatives second or vice versa. So we'll be expecting the likes of Green Party to fly high in the rankings and gain more seats. I know that's why they're voting "yes" but somehow I find it slightly unfair.
Reason Four
It is a complicated system. I will have to feel sorry for the people having to count the votes. Just imagine how long it will take if no one will get 50% or higher until the last count. They'll be there forever. I'm not wanting a delay in the results.
Reason Five
50% we can all agree is a number which we all want to see candidates gaining at the first shot but some constituancies have closer margins than others. I'm taking the above diagram as an example. 38% initially voted for Labour and 32% voted Conservatives. That surely means a convincing win for the Labour Party? 38% is still a good percentage, most people voted them out of the other parties voted, so what's the problem?
Reason Six
The smaller parties who in the past haven't had the seats they needed to demand decision in the House of Commons but now it seems as if they could determine who would be the next Prime Minister. Wow, that would be astonishing! We had Liberal Democrats picking David Cameron for the current PM and most of us aren't satisfied, that didn't work out well, did it? Look at the harsh cuts affecting most of us. I don't want smaller parties determine the outcome of the elections just because they're ranked second in some constituencies.
The Liberal Democrats surge in the election debates last year, the polls suggested they were more popular than Labour. The result suggested a Hung Parliarment and their 57 seats or so was enough to get Cameron at number 10.
Reason Seven
It baffles me when the "yes" campaign accuses the "no" campaign of being a strong-Tory alliance. Not true. 125 of 258 Labour MPs intend to vote "no". It maybe less than 50% of their MPs but it's not all Conservatives who want to keep the voting system the way it is.
Reason Eight
Nick Clegg is voting "yes" to benefit his party. Understandable. David Cameron is the same but with his "no" vote. Labour seems torn and this referendum appears to have divided the party. It may not benefit them in the long term but it baffles me why Ed Miliband intends to vote "yes". How would this benefit his party? Labour have won enough times under the current voting system to convince them that they could win the election.
I tweeted to Ed saying how would AV benefit his party? He failed to respond. Maybe he knows he's wrong?
My theory regarding BNP's decision to say "no". They are traditionalists and want to keep things British and FPTP maybe a step towards that direction. I don't know, I don't get them.
Reason Nine
Only three countries use the Alternative Vote in the whole wide world. Only three, out of 250+ countries. That has got to mean something. Even statistics show that these countries aren't overly satisfied by the way they vote. One of which is Fiji.
These are the reasons why I'm saying "no". I hope you have your own minds about this but saying "yes" might prove to be a little complicated and unnecessary. All we have to do is wait and see the result on May 6th.
You argue well, but I have to say you are wrong on most of your assumptions. Let me now answer your points in turn, but due to wordcount limits it will be in sections -
ReplyDelete1. Yes, 38% of people voted for labour but that means 62% didn't and that is not fair. Whilst I would not be happy for the Tories to get elected, at least I am more likely to get an MP I was happy with, or at least not upset at getting. That's probably the main benefot of AV, most people get someone they're happy with, and that is fairer than 62% getting someone they're not.
2. You transfer your vote only to those parties you are happy to represent you, you do not have to vote for everyone.
3. There are some people, admittedly not Lab or Con supporters who will vote for both of those parties high up, e.g. in a Tory/Plaid marginal a labour or LibDem supporter could vote for their party first but transfer to Plaid as second preference just to keep the Tories out. But also, after Blair's moving of Labour to the Right in the 1990's and successively, there are people on the Right of Labour who find an affinity with the Left of the Conservative Party so your initial proposition cannot be guaranteed.
4. It is not a complicated system! The first preferences will be counted just as they are now, tied off and that's the end of it. When one candidate is eliminated, all that has to be done is their next preferences to be counted and added to the already existing piles. It is not difficult, will not need counting machines (although they will probably work out more efficiently and therefore cheeper than people in the long run) and in these days of political disengagement and low turn-outs, having to count possibly 2-3000 extra votes will be nothing more than the days of high turn-out.
ReplyDelete5. No, most people did not vote for them, 62% in your diagram voted against them so if you look at it from the point of view of 62-38 its a rather crushing defeat, not far off 2:1.
6. Yes, if there is a hung parliament then a smaller party could just hold the balance of power, but that might not be that bad a thing - look no further than Wales where we have had coalition government for most of the last 12 years and in my opinion they were governments with some of the best policies. But let me go back to my previous comment, a party winning the largest number of seats but not an absolute majority means that more people voted against them so by getting together with another party they are representing the majority of people, with policies that they are both generally happy with. BUT, there is nothing to say that there could never be a grand coalition of Labour and Conservatives, just look at Germany in the previous Bundestag where the CDU and SPD were in coalition together, putting party politics to one side for the benefit of the country.
7&8. I will deal with these two together, as they are essentially the same. I have to agree with you on this, but you have to agree that it is Labour which is split not the Tories nor LibDems, they are both firmly in one camp or another. There is also no denying that No to AV is exceptionally well funded, mainly through donations from people who also give huge donations to the Conservative Party, but we will have to wait for the accounts to be published afterwards for a definative answer. Labour however are not going to come out of this referendum in good shape, and will look divided to the public, just like the Tories were during the major government, and look what happened to them... Ed should have put his foot down and expected a bit of party discipline, but then can the Labour No's not see the damage they're causing their party? Could they not just stay quiet, go on holiday or something? As for the BNP supporting No, is that not a good enough reason to vote Yes?
9. Yes, only three countries us AV but that does not mean that everyone else uses FPTP! A fair few countries hold an AV-type election, especially for President where there is an initial round of voting and the top two candidates then go head to head in a run-off. I personally do not like that system as it is prone to anomalies like what happened in France a few years back when the Socialists found themselves having to vote for the Gaulists in order to keep out the le Penne (the far-Right candidate, sorry if my spelling is wrong!). If it was a proper AV election, the votes of the smaller parties might have been enough to push the socialists into at least second place.
I am voting YES, because currently only 1.6% of the electorate in a small number of constituences mainly in the South East of England decide who the Queen will invote to form a government, and that is not fair.
They are good arguments you put forward but I want to vote on one party without contemplating on other positions. I know I can vote "1" and that's it, no need for "2, 3, 4" etc.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't like the fact that the smaller parties have a stronger voice in AV. They are smaller parties for a reason. Is it fair? For the smaller parties it is, but not for the person who initially won under FPTP.
I'm voting "no" anyway. 27 constituancies would have been effected if AV was taken to effect last year. It maybe a small number but it could have made a huge difference to the election output. And only three countries in the world use the system. That has to say something about this AV vote.