Why the 'head-shaking stupidity' of the No campaign is winning me over to voting Yes to AV
According to the No campaign
AV is costly
The change to AV will cost up to an additional £250 million. Local councils would have to waste money on costly electronic vote counting machines and expensive voter education campaigns. With ordinary families facing tough times can we really afford to spend a quarter of a billion pounds of taxpayers' money bringing in a new voting system? Schools and hospitals, or the Alternative Vote – that's the choice in this referendum.
AV is complex and unfair
The winner should be the candidate that comes first, but under AV the candidate who comes second or third can actually be elected. That’s why it is used by just three countries in the world – Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea. Voters should decide who the best candidate is, not the voting system. We can't afford to let the politicians off the hook by introducing a loser's charter.
The No campaign are winning me towards a Yes to AV vote, despite my scepticism that AV will lead to PR and my concern to break the coalition, I have been astonished by the sub-tabloid stupidity of the campaign.
The cost argument is astonishing. As the Economist notes, its an argument that might be used by Gadaffi, democracy is too expensive for the people of Tripoli:
This blog has grumbled in earlier postings about the head-shaking stupidity of some of the national campaign posters, such as the No2AV offering that suggests that the country cannot afford to spend £250m on a new voting system because soldiers need new bullet proof vests, without any further discussion of whether AV might or might not be a good way to elect a parliament.
Australia, Fiji, Papua New Guinea....its just a slur against foreigners and how many countries embrace 'first past the post'?
An election is not a horse race, its about representation.
Oh and Australia has had AV for 90 years without using''expensive counting machines'.
Well in Australia it has not led to proportional representation or more than one member of parliament for the Green Party but its hardly been a disaster.
Equally the complexity argument is absurd, you just number from one downwards your preferences....and of course, if you just want to vote for your top preference alone you are not forced to number other candidates....the association between the BNP who oppose AV with AV made by the No Campaign is also absurd as fact checker notes here:
AV is highly unlikely to help the BNP win any seats, and the secondary votes of BNP supporters alone wouldn’t swing a seat for any other party – going on last year’s results.
In fact, in a very divided constituency, the BNP arguably has a better chance of winning a seat under First Past the Post than under AV.
As an AV sceptic I am being won over for AV by the no campaign....clearly the right in Britain don't want AV which seems as good a reason as any for supporting AV
Oh and some excellent points on the 'head shaking stupidity of the No campaign' from another another green here.
This from Matt is interesting and disturbing click here:
And the case for AV is summed up here by Kaila:
I think that, even though it isn't PR, and is still a bit rubbish, it's still so much better than FPTP and we need even miniscule and not-perfect change to kickstart the reform revolution.