There have been public debates and discussions. Indeed there is a varying view that we see from the public on this. Some say that it is definitely time for change and indeed some that all MP’s are crooks and it won’t matter how they’re elected.
I would ask that, although the posturing by both sides has a role in persuading people which way they should vote in the upcoming referendum, it hides the facts, the facts that are masked by the arguments made.
So to the facts:
1. Is the current First Past the Post system right for modern politics?
No, the FPTP system is good when used in a TWO party system, which when it was first used was what we had. A straight run between the Whigs and Tories. Today we have a multi party system which allows an MP to be elected with 30% to 40% of the votes cast and in some cases in previous elections as low as 19%.
2. IF we have AV won’t that mean that some people get TWO, or more, votes?
No, because although the 2nd preference of eliminated candidates are counted, they are added to the 1st preference of those still in the election (thus those 1st preferences are counted for a second time too)
3. Isn’t AV just to benefit the Liberal Democrats, or let the third place candidate win?
No, It benefits the electorate, as the winning candidate has the support of 50% +1 of the electorate who voted. Which could be any candidate who appeals to the electorate.
4. How can AV make my MP work harder?
What AV does, is mean that a candidate must reach out to everyone in their prospective constituency and not rely on their core vote to carry them through, as happens in many ‘safe seats’ around the Country.
5. What is wrong with just staying as we are?
There comes a time when the voting system is ‘out of tune’ with the electorate. If our fore-fathers had stayed ‘as we are’ then the working class would not have a vote and neither would women. Times change and so must we.
6. The AV vote is complicated?
Everyone can count to three. Political parties and others use AV (or a form of) to elect their leaders! If it’s good enough for them, are they making assumptions of the general public.
AV is okay to elect the leaders who govern and present opposition in this Country, but not good enough to elect our MP. To me that seems hypocritical.
7. Does AV cost a lot of money?
That is a myth that was dispelled long ago, but still seems to be a mainstay of the argument against AV (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voting-reform-will-not-cause-more-cuts-treasury-insists-2226784.html)
8. Why are more people likely to turn out and vote with AV?
In the present system some people see their vote as wasted, because the same old Party gets in every time anyway, so what’s the point!
With AV all votes count, so there is no such thing as a wasted vote, everyone has a say in which candidate is elected.
9. You support AV so you would say that, wouldn’t you?
I am merely giving the facts. Time after time in debates the NO 2 AV campaign have failed to convince me and others that there is a valid argument as to why we should keep the Victorian voting system.
Ask yourself these questions, answer yourself honestly, what do YOU think.
Above are few of the FACTS, no celebrities, no bickering, just the facts and on that we should judge and in my opinion say YES 2 AV.