Why I will vote against AV

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a letter to the Western Mail about AV.  It was published earlier this month ... you can find it by going to the letters page of the Western Mail website for 1 April 2011.

What really troubles me about the debate between those advocating that we change the voting system to AV and those (including me) who say we shouldn't adopt AV, is that the some of the debate appears to be dominated by the sort of 'you are a liar', 'you are disreputable' and 'your funders are awful' accusations that I had hoped would not be used.

The reality is that whether you choose to vote for AV or not, the idea that it is a 'fairer' system than that we currently used is, in my view, simply silly.  The problem for me is why should my second, third, fourth, fifth or even lower preference be decisive over your first preference?  That's not fair.  It isn't just.

What the proponents of AV appear to say is that if you can express a preference, you can vote for the people you like in order and avoid tactical voting - but isn't the reality of Australia (one of the few countries to use AV) that there is even more tactical voting as supporters of individual parties are told by psephologists employed by the parties how to use their preferences tactically so as to benefit an individual party ...

We are told that the vote in 1992 (and at other times when the result is closer) would probably have resulted in a hung Parliament (had AV been used).  The result of hung Parliaments is the haggling behind closed doors becomes the important part of the formation of Government rather than the election itself.  This means that rather than having manifestos to choose from, we will end up with the senior politicians (numbering very few indeed) deciding behind closed doors what the program for Government will be.  This isn't going to enhance engagement or democracy ... it is going to increase the power of the parties at the expense of backbenchers and of voters.

Even the claim that MPs will have to win the support of over 50% of the vote is wrong - because there is no requirement to cast preference votes for all, the claim is mathematically wrong.

It is inevitable, I suppose, that it is the sensational claims that will hit the headlines.  It is also inevitable that the claims made will be, in some respects, exaggerated and wrong.  Finally, I suppose it is inevitable that when a technical change is proposed that it is difficult for use to find methods to get people enthused about the vote - but I am sad that parts of the debate has centered on contested claims about the cost and rather silly claims about the alleged fairness of AV over the current system.

Many of those that are claiming to want AV, want nothing of the sort - they want a proportional system of voting.  But that is simply not on offer, and so they claim to want something they don't really want, simply because they see it as a stepping stone to something else.  It is true that this is a debate that people outside Westminster really aren't interested that interested in ... as a result, I suspect that we shall see record low turnout and it will be those who get their vote out that will win.  For the reasons that I have set out, I sincerely hope it will be rejected ...