Reject the alternative vote (AV) system

If you want to make Nick Clegg’s day because he is your favourite politician then vote YES to the Alternative Vote (AV). Or you can choose to reject this “miserable little compromise” (to quote Mr Clegg) as the political stitch-up it is.

Why you should vote no to AV:

1) Almost every country in the world does not use AV:

First Past The Post (FPTP), our current voting system, is used in 48 countries across the world and is based upon the very acceptable concept of ‘one person, one vote’ campaigned for by the Suffragettes and enshrined in the US Constitution. You simply put an X in the box of the person you want to represent you.

The Alternative Vote, however, is only used in 3 countries in the entire world:

1)Australia, which had to introduce compulsory voting because of the low turn-outs due to AV;

2)Fiji - suspended by the United Nations in 2009 for failing to hold elections;

3)Papua New Guinea - which doesn’t even use the same type of AV (oh yes there are even different types)

2) It entrenches coalition governments

Coalition governments are more likely under AV and several studies have shown that the Liberal Democrats will be the sole beneficiaries from the system change (which is why they want it). This means their number of seats would go up decreasing the chance of any party having an outright majority. As tuition fees have shown, coalition governments are even less likely to keep their promises as they use the coalition as an excuse. This makes politicians less accountable to you

3) It gives the third party disproportionate power

The Liberal Democrats will be in a position to dictate which party they form a government with meaning Nick Clegg, not you, will choose the next government. This is not democratic

4) It gives some people more votes than others

Do you think it is fair that if you vote for one candidate as your first preference it will count for just as much as someone else’s third or fourth choice

AV elects the least controversial candidate - not the most popular one, which is bad for democracy

AV is opposed across the political spectrum from Labour MPs in Scotland down to Conservative MPs in Kent. This waste of £80 million is because of coalition backroom deals and the Liberal Democrats trying to gain political advantage at your expense

Vote NO to AV on the 5th of May and don’t let us sleepwalk into an unfair electoral system.

This article was imported from an earlier version of Felix Online - see the original article here.

Old Comments

This is so preposterous I won't attempt to debunk the lies, instead please see this excellent analysis http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/,1 Is never a reason not to do something. Just because something is unpopular does not mean it isn't good, or at least better than what we have now. The reason few countries use AV is that most skipped that stage and went straight to PR. Which you Tories didn't want. AV, however, is the preferred method when electing a single candidate for a postion. All three major parties use it to elect their leaders, and Imperial uses it (technically STV with oen winner, which is equivalent to AV) to elect Union positions, such as the President, Deputy President, or, say, SCC Chair.
2. Coalitions work well in most European countries, and the negotiations and dealings between the parties help to ensure the party represents a cross section of the nation's views, not just one portion of the electorate. Giving the government a smaller majority is also a go