You are in > Britain
Britain
A vote for AV is a vote for cuts
The supporters of Alternative Voting claim that it is more democratic than our present First Past the Post system (FPTP), because the winner in an election gets the votes of a larger number of the constituents. According to the Electoral Reform Society, a main proponent of AV:
"AV makes this happen with ‘preference voting’. All that means for voters is swapping the ‘X’ on the ballot paper for numbers, so voters can rank the candidates in order of preference 1,2,3…"
Thus if no candidate receives more than 50% of first preference votes- as will be the case in the vast majority of constituencies- it will be the second, third, or even fifth or sixth preference votes, that decide the result.
This is more democratic only on paper. It adds nothing whatsoever to the actual level of agreement among the population with the policies proclaimed- or those eventually put into practice- by the winning candidate.
Much of the case against AV is made plain by the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) itself, by a consideration of the arguments they use in its favour. According to the ERS pamphlet 'What is AV?', Alternative Voting gives "voters a stronger say and eliminating forever the need to vote tactically".
But AV institutionalises tactical voting, making every voter into a tactical voter, and ensuring that the majority of votes- all except the first preference votes- are tactical votes. Even worse, almost every candidate who has the will or possibility to win must become a tactical candidate. As the ERS pamphlet emphasises:
"AV preserves the constituency link of FPTP and makes it stronger – by forcing MPs to reach out to the majority of voters [...] AV encourages candidates to actively appeal to supporters of other parties, reducing the need for negative campaigning."
So Labour Party candidates will be forced to 'reach out' to Liberal voters, or in some constituencies to racist BNP voters, thus abandoning the opinions and interests of Labour’s core working class and progressive supporters.
Tory and Liberal candidates will of course 'reach out' to each other's support base, the AV system giving them by this means a much better chance of defeating the Labour candidate.
Is there any possibility that changing to AV would facilitate a party to the left of Labour to arise and gain Parliamentary representation?
No. The Alternative Voting System closes down any such potential, and furthermore, its effects would reduce the possibility of left wing candidates within the Labour Party being elected. From their point of view, the Electoral Reform Society tells it like it is:
"Shutting down Extremism. AV means divisive or extremist candidates who are unwilling to appeal to a wider electorate have little to no chance of success."
In the real conditions of politics in Britain, this is only effective against the left wing 'extremists' (ie, those who despite that label embody the opinions of the majority, against cuts and privatisation, and voice the interests of the majority, against capitalism and for an expansion of public ownership) - because left wing votes, with few exceptions, go to the Labour Party. The right wing extremists of the BNP and UKIP will, like most of the Liberals, give their second or third preference votes to the Tories.
Given the power of the right wing press, it is a certainty that AV will offer Murdoch and the other media barons the opportunity to deploy 'decapitation' strategies, based on telling their readers how to use their non-first preference votes. These could not merely be focussed only against explicitly left-wing candidates, but also against other MPs or potential MPs who they see as obstacles or can be vilified as convenient hate-figures.
Advocates of Alternative Voting in Parliamentary elections refer to its use within the Labour Party, some Trade Unions, and other voluntary societies, for leadership elections, with no ill effects. This, as the saying goes, is comparing apples with oranges. These organisations, irrespective of whatever factional rivalries exist within them, are largely composed of members who share a common interest and, by joining, adopt the common purpose of the group. A whole country, such as Britain, is nothing like that. The interests of the rich and the ideology of the capitalist market are fundamentally opposed to the welfare of the poor and the working class, and this division is expressed in the political landscape.
Tory lifeline
The Conservative Party officially, and in particular its wing of dissidents on the issues of Britain's relationship with the European Union and some cultural issues, are opposed to AV. This is because they note, correctly, that the Liberals will gain- at most, a significant number of extra seats in Parliament as a result of the change in the voting system, or at least, avoid a wipeout at the next general election. Most Tories would hope, if that were possible, to govern alone rather than as the dominant partner in a coalition.
That, however, is a faint hope. Even last June, facing a Labour leader lacking in popular appeal, tainted by the Iraq disaster and scapegoated for the worst economic crisis since the 1930s and its effects on the public finances, the Tories could not muster enough Parliamentary seats to form a government without Liberal involvement.
In ministerial office, the Liberals have provided no restraint on the radical right wing programme to reconfigure the balance of wealth and power in Britain, a programme with which only a minority of the people agree. The Liberals had nothing to do with the campaigns which have inflicted the policy reverses which the government has so far suffered, on the selling off of the forests and the specific reduction of Housing Benefit for the long-term unemployed.
Hopefully there will be more such reverses- yet overall, there will be massive cuts and further privatisations, and the next election will be fought in the context of the appalling consequences. In order to have a likely prospect of staying in power beyond the next general election, and quite conceivably the one after that, the Conservatives need their Liberal collaborators. The possibility of a Liberal wipeout- particularly an obliteration of the Liberal MPs in urban constituencies (where, under FPTP, a Liberal loss means a Labour gain) poses a potentially deadly threat to the survival of the Tory-dominated government.
Conversely, the adoption of the Alternative Voting system, by boosting or maintaining Liberal representation in Parliament, and by making UK politics even more of a marketplace, devoid of principle, than it is already; would throw a lifeline- quite likely a long-term lifeline- to Cameron & Co, and their successors.
Unless that is what you want, vote no to AV.