I don't pretend to understand the full intricacies of the AV debate, and the raft of celebrity supporters and mud-slinging by each side only seems to cheapen what is a first UK referendum in 35 years and a rare opportunity to make a pretty major change to how we are governed.
Then, joy of joys, the No campaign spelled it out for me with a horse race. The one in front comes in first, but what's this? The horse that came in third has won? That can't be right can it?
This analogy, shown in the 'No to AV' video broadcast, is the linchpin of the argument against voting reform. And for me, it fails miserably.
To boil a nationwide series of ballots to one, straight dash for the line ignores the fact that an election is made up of countless individual races. A better comparison would be motor racing, and then the picture changes dramatically.
In the 2008 Formula One season, Lewis Hamilton won his first driver's title. He won five races along the way. Felipe Massa, however, was 'first past the post' on six occasions; he won more races and would have been crowned champion using our current voting system. This, of course, fails to acknowledge the consistency of Hamilton's season, where he only finished out of the points on three occasions, compared to Massa's five.
Surely the same logic should apply to politics; if one party performs consistently well in more regions, without necessarily winning, surely there should be some reward attached to that. Currently in my home constituency, the Lib Dems win 39% of the vote with not a sausage to show for it. The Green Party took Brighton with a much lower percentage. Under AV, the eventual winners have to have 50% of the population at least partially behind them. Sounds fairer to me.
Leaflets through my door have been screaming the 'one person, one vote' argument for keeping first past the post. In reality, most people don't get anything like that much of a share; mine currently counts for 0.3 of a vote. This therefore totally undermines a central argument of the No campaign: they preach about the power of our vote, and this would actually be increased if they are defeated in the vote tomorrow.
Under AV, voter power in my area increases by 30%. That has to be a good thing. An excellent tool for assessing how AV would affect your vote can be found via http://www.voterpower.org.uk.
Scaremongering about what would help the BNP, cripple us financially or dilute voter power has essentially ruined what should have been an engaging political debate. If you, like me, are swayed by pure numbers, then the Yes/No decision appears a very clear one. So vote Yes tomorrow - if you can be bothered to go to the polls at all that is.
No comments:
Post a Comment