In May those in Britain over 18 have the opportunity to change our voting system for the first time in, well, ever.
First-past-the-post, our current system, is not just unfair; it creates parliaments which are grossly disproportionate to how the British people actually voted. In the 1951 election, for example, the Labour governments vote share increased, yet they lost the elections to the Tories, because of where there supporters lived.
AV is in no way an ideal system, but it is a step in the right direction. It's most significant virtue is that it removes power from the two major parties and allows the smaller parties to flourish, so the British people can have the confidence to vote for a party they truly believe in, and the British parliament can have a real opposition.
To expand on that point, think of how party politics works in Britain now. Ever since 1945, we have been presented with two choices: Labour or the Conservatives. This means all Blair, Thatcher, Major, Wilson and Cameron had to do to get elected was look marginally better than the other party. The governments we've had have only ever had to present themselves as the lesser of two evils, rather than actually create policies that would improve the lives of those in Britain.
There was a movement to challenge that system. It started as the SDP/Liberal Alliance, and became the Liberal Democrat Party. David Owen, David Steel, Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy all stood as an alternative to red/blue politics. But now, thanks to Nick Clegg and his colleagues, their efforts have been wasted. Instead of balancing the red-blue seesaw, the Lib Dems simply run the in whichever direction it appears to be tilting.
It's apparent that the way to bring down two-party politics in Britain requires both new political movements and a new voting system to support them. The movements will have to take care of themselves, but we can force through the voting system. The best voting system would be Proportional Representation, but the Alternative Vote is a step in the right direction.
AV works like this:
-Voters rank the available candidates in order of preference
-When the results are counted, the first preferences are counted first, and if any candidate gets over 50% of the vote, they are elected
-If no candidate has over 50% of the vote, the least-supported candidate is eliminated, and the second choices of the people who voted for them are added to the total of the other candidates
-This continues until one candidate has over 50% of the vote
So how does this support smaller parties?
If, for example, someone's preferred political party was the Green Party, but they strongly preferred Labour over the Conservatives, then under first-past-the-post, they would probably vote for Labour, to support a slightly preferable government. But under AV, that voter can rank the Greens first, and Labour second, so that in the event of the Green candidate not winning in his constituency, his vote can still support Labour in order to keep out the Tories. Therefore, people have much more confidence in voting for smaller parties.
The other benefit I haven't talked about much (but is made obvious by the description of AV) is that every candidate has to win a majority in their constituency, rather than sneaking in on 30% of the vote. This makes MPs far more accountable, easier to get rid of if they don't do their job, and thus making life more democratic for everyone.
So if you're over-18, and British, vote yes to AV.
Or don't, if you're not convinced.
Obviously.
First-past-the-post, our current system, is not just unfair; it creates parliaments which are grossly disproportionate to how the British people actually voted. In the 1951 election, for example, the Labour governments vote share increased, yet they lost the elections to the Tories, because of where there supporters lived.
AV is in no way an ideal system, but it is a step in the right direction. It's most significant virtue is that it removes power from the two major parties and allows the smaller parties to flourish, so the British people can have the confidence to vote for a party they truly believe in, and the British parliament can have a real opposition.
To expand on that point, think of how party politics works in Britain now. Ever since 1945, we have been presented with two choices: Labour or the Conservatives. This means all Blair, Thatcher, Major, Wilson and Cameron had to do to get elected was look marginally better than the other party. The governments we've had have only ever had to present themselves as the lesser of two evils, rather than actually create policies that would improve the lives of those in Britain.
There was a movement to challenge that system. It started as the SDP/Liberal Alliance, and became the Liberal Democrat Party. David Owen, David Steel, Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy all stood as an alternative to red/blue politics. But now, thanks to Nick Clegg and his colleagues, their efforts have been wasted. Instead of balancing the red-blue seesaw, the Lib Dems simply run the in whichever direction it appears to be tilting.
It's apparent that the way to bring down two-party politics in Britain requires both new political movements and a new voting system to support them. The movements will have to take care of themselves, but we can force through the voting system. The best voting system would be Proportional Representation, but the Alternative Vote is a step in the right direction.
AV works like this:
-Voters rank the available candidates in order of preference
-When the results are counted, the first preferences are counted first, and if any candidate gets over 50% of the vote, they are elected
-If no candidate has over 50% of the vote, the least-supported candidate is eliminated, and the second choices of the people who voted for them are added to the total of the other candidates
-This continues until one candidate has over 50% of the vote
So how does this support smaller parties?
If, for example, someone's preferred political party was the Green Party, but they strongly preferred Labour over the Conservatives, then under first-past-the-post, they would probably vote for Labour, to support a slightly preferable government. But under AV, that voter can rank the Greens first, and Labour second, so that in the event of the Green candidate not winning in his constituency, his vote can still support Labour in order to keep out the Tories. Therefore, people have much more confidence in voting for smaller parties.
The other benefit I haven't talked about much (but is made obvious by the description of AV) is that every candidate has to win a majority in their constituency, rather than sneaking in on 30% of the vote. This makes MPs far more accountable, easier to get rid of if they don't do their job, and thus making life more democratic for everyone.
So if you're over-18, and British, vote yes to AV.
Or don't, if you're not convinced.
Obviously.
Anything the reduces the number of 'shoe-in' seats, and means the percentage of votes cast nationally has a greater weight is a good thing. The 'No' campaign, support by the brains of The Daily Mail, have yet to give me a better arguement than 'Nick Clegg is weak' (a weird, yet an apparent angle).
ReplyDelete