AV Referendum - The Cases

In the noticeable absence of clear and concise explanations of the pros and cons for voting Yes to AV and No to AV (and therefore a vote for maintaining the first-past the post system), for the sake of clarity here are the cases in short for AV and FPTP:

For FPTP: First-past-the-post is the system currently in place, consisting of a single round of voting, where a simple largest minority of votes is enough to gain victory.

+ The simplicity of vote counting is a positive of this system, allowing for a clearly understood result and a fast resolution.

+ This system follows the one member - one constituency form of representation. This system provides a simple and straight-forward link between people and their representative in parliament.

+ FPTP however, can produce effects that are not straightforward. For example it drives all parties away from centrist positions, encouraging partisan tactical voting against a candidate rather than for and candidates can be elected on very small percentages of the vote. This particularly favours very well organised minority parties.

+ Follow this link to a Electoral Reform Society report on FPTP.

For AV:  The Alternative Vote is the system it is proposed to switch to. It consists of an elimination process, set over as many rounds of voting as is necessary to find a clear winner who represents as close to 50%+ of voters as possible. In order to speed the process of voting, rather than voting again for each round, the voter lists their preferences on their ballot paper. As the voter's preferred candidate is eliminated, their vote is moved to their next preference.  This is the reason for AV's other name, Instant-runoff Voting (IRV).

+ This system demands more of elected representatives than FPTP. In that system candidates only need more votes than their opponents (the largest minority), where as with AV candidates must represent a majority of (or close to) voters in their constituency.

+ AV maintains the one member - one constituency link and its clear connection between voters & representatives.

+ AV could lead to a solidifying of the positions of the major parties since the system lends itself to parties that are able to develop broad support. This does however decrease the power of extreme minority parties. It also does not guarantee the end of safe seats as candidates that appeal to broad base could have a much stronger position than before.

+ Follow this link to a Electoral Reform Society report on AV.

The Balance:

'The Electoral Reform Society thinks that, on balance, the massive failings of FPTP severely outweigh the advantage of its incumbency'

'The [Electoral Reform] Society has long argued that AV is the best system when you're out to elect a single winner'

On the balance of arguments, AV appears to be simply a more refined and more formal approach to the aims of FPTP. It uses more complex counting and a preferential voting system to formalise the aims of FPTP such as local links for MPS, MPs as the representatives of a majority of their voters and greater accountability through this higher standard for electoral victory & the need to appeal to broader support.

Nobody should be under the impression that AV is proportional, because it isn't. The reason those who support proportional systems are being encouraged to vote yes is because a yes vote represents a path to securing further reforms in the future eg. an Elected House of Lords.

It is also untrue that AV encourages further coalition, as it is in fact closer to FPTP in its two-party system tendency to make the work of third and minor parties much more difficult. In fact it does this much better than FPTP where well organised local extreme groups can have a much bigger affect than their little support should allow them.

It could also lead to some seats being much more safe than they are now, if a candidate is able to appeal to a very broad base of support, beyond the traditional core vote. This could however be limited in further reforms, for instance with the introduction of term limits for members of parliament to prevent seats staying with particular members indefinitely.

In all, the case for AV appears to be stronger. It seems to do all the things that FPTP aims to do, but better. It also represents a vote for a break from the political past, as a rejection of corruption and a demand for greater accountability & reform.