Kieran Lawrence looks at autonomous weapons and the effect they could have on modern warfare
Continuing a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Angela Merkel
Ben Bland examines the fallout from the Iowa caucuses and looks forward to the New Hampshire primaries.
In the first of a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Nicholas Sarkozy
We must, however, allow neither apathy nor laziness to deny this country what is a golden opportunity to take a step towards a better democracy. George Osborne has already threatened to close the door on electoral reform should the referendum result in a ‘no’, so it is crucial to take an interest, consider carefully, and act on May 5th.
For those who don’t know, under AV, voters number their preferred candidates, in order of preference; one to three. The ‘one’ votes are then counted, and if a candidate has more than 50% support, he/she is declared the winner. If not, then the least popular candidate is eliminated, and those who voted for him/her have their ‘two’ votes counted. The process continues until a single candidate has over 50% of the votes.
Why is this better than our current system? Firstly, every MP would have the support of more than half their electorate. This was not the case in two-thirds of constituencies at the last election, and is the reason why a lot of MPs are able to hold ‘seats for life’. Under AV, every election would challenge candidates to work harder to secure at least some approval from every voter. Parties would have to appeal to more sections of society: all ethnic, economic and social groups would be important.
AV also marginalises extremist parties. Through the last decade, particularly between 2006 and 2008, the BNP had considerable success in local elections, securing seats with only minority support. This would not happen under AV, because very few voters are likely to put BNP as a second preference. It’s just not the sort of thing you do half-heartedly. Instead, BNP supporters would be asked to compromise, and choose a second preference. Their vote, should it be recounted, would therefore be neutralised by their having to vote for a more mainstream, responsible party. Those who refused to compromise would be removed from the election process. Just like that.
Thirdly, AV eliminates tactical voting. No longer would parties lose votes, as Labour did in York Outer at the 2010 election, purely to avoid ‘letting the Tories in’. AV lets every voter divide his or her support accordingly between the parties. So if you generally support Labour’s approach, but you’re also quite partial to one or two things the Green Party and the Lib Dems have to say, this is all taken into account. AV is an accurate cross-section of society; it removes the pressure of putting all your political eggs in one ideological basket. Share your eggs out; give them to whoever you think deserves them: AV will do the rest.
AV certainly isn’t perfect in any philosophical sense of what democracy should mean, but it is genuinely an improvement: its critics can only construct short-term or fear-inducing drawbacks. They say, for example, that it is unnecessarily costly to spend £250 million implementing AV. Well, considering the estimated £9.3 billion budget for the London Olympics is justified by the games’ purported benefits to the country’s future, is it unreasonable to spend one-fortieth of that on fundamentally improving the way our country is governed?
The ‘no’ campaign also claims AV is an overly complex system, but complex for whom? Are you, as a voter, able to pick your favourite three politicians and write a big number one next to your favourite? One assumes that every voter won’t actually have the responsibility of calculating the results.
In the final count, everybody gets one vote. At least half of any electorate support the eventual winner. Every single voter is important to every single candidate. Everybody votes for whomever they want, and no vote is ever irrelevant. Does that sound fair to you?
AV’s chief opponent, ‘Call Me Dave’ Cameron, chose a Churchill quote to hammer hope his disapproval of the new system: “"It is the stupidest, the least scientific, the most unreasonable of all voting systems," said Winston of AV. Whilst the British electorate probably finds it difficult to resist the wisdom of its favourite wartime leader, we must remember that Churchill, like many things, belongs in the distant past. He thought that the Hindus were a “foul race”, called Mahatma Gandhi a “half-naked fakir”, and declared himself “strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes [in Iraq].” He even disapproved of FPTP. It’s time Britain took a step towards truer democracy, and left its archaic voting system, along with its archaic attitudes, firmly in the history books.
This is exclusively the personal opinion of the author, and does not represent that of the Yorker's.
I can't actually find any evidence for Churchill saying that about AV. Only Cameron saying he said that. Even the winstonchurchill.org doesn't have any source, and merely reports Cameron said it. If someone can find it though, I'll happily retract this statement. It was nice to see a non-positive viewpoint on the man though, he wasn't all sunshine and roses by all means, and if he'd had his way in the early 1930s we'd have been fighting the Nazis with biplanes.
Furthermore, you didn't even mention that the £250m figure is grossly overblown, since part of it is the cost of the referendum itself, which happens regardless of outcome, and the majority would come from (unnecessary) electronic voting machines. AV CAN be counted by hand, and indeed as far as we know, would be.
Great article. I think that the biggest problem with this referendum will be that people don't actually know what AV is. It's not a complicated system, as anyone who can count to five is capable of voting! However, I spoke to someone the other day who told me that they weren't going to back the AV referendum because they "didn't want proportional representation and endless coalition governments". Obviously that wouldn't happen under AV but if you don't know the system then it's not an unrealistic thing to think.
I think the other thing that's been pushed slightly to one side is the effect of party politics on the campaign. In my opinion, the Conservatives don't want AV because they believe that FPTP is a fairer option, they don't want it because they are few people's second choice and would lose out under AV. The Lib Dems want it because they are many people's second preference and probably lose out the most under FPTP. Labour stand to not be too bad either way, but Ed Miliband is probably smart enough to realise that a Yes vote would be a hammer blow to the Conservatives and that has formed part of the reason why he backs the Yes campaign.
comment deleted by the author It's very short sighted to assume that av is easy to understand generally just because you feel it is easy. I understand av, it's a piece of piss, but I live with my elderly grandmother who doesn't understand it at all. She's getting confused by all the AV propoganda and party mud-slinging. It is easy to understand in terms of what to do in the voting booth but it is the implications of what AV means in the wider sense in terms of a democratic vote, proportional representation etc. that is very confusing to people. My grandmother on the other side is not a native English speaker and I know that she is also incredibly confused by it all. People like this would rather stick to the system where they know where they stand with. It is naiive and insulting to many people that you assume that it is as easy for you as it is for everyone else to understand.
If conservatives have reason to fear AV for not being a second choice, so do labour. Being at opposite ends of the spectrum, they would both loose 2nd choice votes from AV. For every leftie that votes for other parties that would never give any vote to a conservative, there is a right winger who would never give any preference of vote to labour.
Amy,
I appreciate what you're saying - I have an 87-year-old grandmother who has already voted 'no' because she was worried about change and didn't understand the implications of AV.
My point really is that not understanding AV is not a reason to vote 'no'. This article is aimed at a student readership for obvious reasons, and so I approach the issue in those terms. Were I writing for someone, such as my grandma, who is confused about the issue, I wouldn't be so insulting as to assume they could never understand it. It's just a case of explaining it in other terms.
My criticisms of the 'no' campaign are based on its vicious deception of people, by deliberately confusing those who perhaps don't quite understand the issue. I think concepts such as 'every MP has to have more than half the support of the electorate' are principles that can be fairly accessibly understood. I didn't understand the finer implications of the Lisbon Treaty, for instance, but I could appreciate the basic principles if they're explained in a way I can understand. It's about finding a level of understanding that suits you; not fear-mongering about this complex form of evil that is sneaking into parliament.
I reiterate: this is an article aimed at students at a good university. Were I talking to my grandmother about it, which I have, I would explain it differently. In my opinion, it's just not acceptable to say 'you'll never understand this, so vote no.'
Conservatives fear AV because they currently benefit from the Left vote being split between the two traditionally left-ish parties: Lab and Lib Dem. They REGULARLY benefit in constituencies where the RW vote (loosely speaking) is assigned to one party (Tory), and the LW vote (loosely speaking) is shared between two parties (Lab and Lib). So even though more are broadly in favour of LW policies, the RW party gets the seat. AV helps to solve this problem, as votes are no longer split.
I was going to vote 'no' until I realised the no campaign were utterly bereft of ideas and basically calling the British electorate stupid. When I lived in England, I lived in a constituency that had been Tory for as long as I can remember and now living in Scotland it's much the same with Labour... hopefully this will change things!
York's one of those constituencies. If every Labour voter had voted Lib Dem or vice versa at the last election in York Outer, Sturdy would have come a distant second. He had fewer than 3,000 more votes than Kirk, where Alexander had 9,000 (overall, not less). Had the last election been conducted under AV, we can assume a majority of around 4,000 for Kirk. Pretty comfortable for a Tory seat.
Personally I find it rather insulting that the No campaign assumes we CANNOT understand AV. Its arguments are that "This system is complex, don't use it". Which is effectively saying "You're too stupid to understand it, so don't vote for it". The British public are stupid enough to vote Tory, but they can still count to five. Imagine if the No campaign were actually saying those things, instead of implying them. Then where would they be...
My hometown constituency (in terms of class and voting habits) is extremely polarised. It encompasses great deprivation and a large and solid Labour vote which lives cheek by jowl with a similarly large, affluent Tory-voting population. My hometown has returned a government-side MP every single election since the 1950s and as such is regarded as a classic barometer constituency. As I understand it, what AV models that can be applied to it have suggested the same results anyway. All rather theoretical I know.
Please let us not make the mistake of thinking LibDem voters have more in common with Labour ones. I vote Liberal Democrat and would be far more likely to vote Conservative than Labour. Many Lib Dem supporters are classical Liberals who have much more in common with a Cameron-flavoured Tory party than a Brown or Milliband flavoured Labour platform. It is not sensible to predict how Lib Dem voters would award second preference votes and I think the result would surprise and upset many Labour supporters. I disagree that FPTP is only going to benefit the Conservatives. So do a sizeable number of Labour MPs who are backing the NO campaign.
#8 AGREE! I despise this idea that keeps getting floated that Liberal Democrats are really just Labour-Lite and really count as the same thing. I know some powerful Liberal Democrats have helped float it, but it is far from the truth, even in the party and certainly among supporters. Having said that I will be voting 'Yes'. But my second vote would never be a Labour one.
#8, you can't talk about your constituency because this article is only for students at the University of York so mentioning any other group of people as an analytical point is irrelevant 
Margaret Thatcher was, in at least two elections, helped into office by people who had voted Labour their entire lives and who regarded themselves as solidly working class. Tony Blair was, in at least two elections, helped into office by affluent southerners who had never voted anything other than Conservative. You're talking at least a million of each. I don't see how AV is going to protect either party from this kind of swing. The number of people made exhausted and furious by the Thatcher-Major governments spilled out of the opposition and into their traditional vote. Same thing happened the other way around to chuck out Brown. People don't blindly vote the same way time after time. AV will not be a barrage for any party against the voters of another. And these swings have happened over the heads of Liberal Democrat voters too.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report