UK Referendum debate
Not sure whether to say 'yes' or 'no' to voting reform in the UK referendum on May 5th? Our recent debate may help with your decision.
We invited three campaigners from the Political Academy to share their views on the Alternative Vote (AV) and argue their case for and against. You can find out more about their political interests and background on the discussion boards.
Alternative voting basically means a different way of electing MPs than the one we have now. Under the proposed new system voters would have the chance to put first, second, third preference (and so on) instead of just putting one cross for one candidate.
Confused? Check out www.whatyousaying.orgs handy bite-sized guide to what the referendum is about.
**Helen** : Welcome! First off, who is for AV who is against and who is undecided?
yellowseahorse : yes to AV.
Huda : I'm YES to AV .
abi : I'm no to AV.
Sarah19 : I'm yes to AV.
**Helen** : Ok, Huda, do you want to kick off then and give us your reasons for why you're pro?
Huda : Ok, I'm pro because I think it's a fairer system. I think it's fairer because it means that MPs would have to work really hard to keep their seats rather than be complacent and assume they will stay put. By working harder I mean getting their communities votes and putting in the effort! Campaigning and really understanding what people want from their government locally.
rose : This is because under AV MPs would have to get over 50% of the first preference votes to win.
abi : I think that AV is an inconsequential system, it's not quite Proportional Representation (PR) and not First-Past-The-Post (FPTP the current system), so what is it really?
Sarah19 : A compromise.
abi : It's basically just a bit of political propaganda that the Lib democrats will wrangle out of the coalition.
Fostress : Do you think that FPTP is a better system abi?
abi : I think that FPTP is probably the most fair - one person, one vote, so like, you get a clear outcome.
yellowseahorse : FPTP isn't really "one person, one vote" though. Your vote can mean near to nothing depending on who you vote for in your constituency.
martin.orme : l'm strongly in favour of the change to AV. abi - the difference with AV is that every vote matters.
abi : In what way martin?
martin.orme : AV means everyone has a say who will be elected, no one is pushed to the sidelines and MPs will have to listen to people outside their core support base in a way that they are not currently doing. It will give more power to people and less to Whitehall.
abi : I just feel that in theory AV would be better, but in practice it wouldn't solve the flaws of FTPT - and I admit there are some - and neither would it bring the purported benefits of PR.
Fostress : What do you think are the flaws of FTPT then Abi? It sounds like you don't think it is fair, but don't think AV is the answer?
abi : i think that FPTP does support safe seats a bit too much.
NINA! : I think all voting is a waste of time! They are all useless!
Huda : I understand that some young people may believe voting is a waste of time but it is an opportunity to voice your opinion in one way or another, we are fortunate to have the chance.
martin.orme : PR is also my preferred system in many aspects. I think anyone who supports PR should realise that AV is the reform on offer currently. It isn't perfect but its a step forward from the outdated and corrupt FPTP. If we turn this chance down it will put back the process of reform for a generation.
Fostress : I know some people say that AV now will mean PR is less likely to happen in the future, what do you think about this Martin/anyone?
Huda : I believe that the referendum is a chance to change an old way of voting that hasn't been great in the past. It's time for a new way.
Sarah19 : I reckon it would open the doors to PR as people can see how effective the AV would be and FPTP will be a thing of the past.
abi : Change for change's sake is hardly a reason.
NINA! : I think it is fantastic that everyone can have their say and in theory each individual can have their voices heard, but when are we ever listened to? I also think politicians make false promises.
Fostress : I think some people might say that AV means people are more listened to. Would anyone agree?
martin.orme : AV is a fundamental improvement on FPTP, it will mean that there are fewer safe seats for one. It will also mean that MPs have to listen to constituents.
Huda : I agree Fostress, I also think that it would decrease the chance of extremists getting seats.
Sarah19 : I think it will make parliament more representative of society as more parties that people believe in the real world will have a voice in parliament. This could possibly help with issues around diversity too.
yellowseahorse : It will mean MPs working harder to get a seat by appealing to a larger group of people and then working harder to keep it.
abi : I think PR will make parties more representative not AV.
martin.orme : It will also mean it will be much easier to vote MPs out if they fail to live up to promises. It typically takes around three parliaments to vote out government. In effect this will mean that governments will no longer take advantage for the best part of their term and suddenly start listening to us just before elections.
Huda : Yeah and banish the 'jobs for life culture' in parliament.
abi : AV is a compromise that doesnt solve the flaws of FPTP.
martin.orme : It solves many if not all of the flaws. The choice is FPTP or AV. AV is more democratic and will mean that parliaments are a truer representation of peoples views.
**Helen** : What do pro AV people say to the likelihood of their being more coalition governments and what will the impact of this be?
"What happens if people don't rank their votes - is it a spoiled ballot?"
Fostress : Yeah, I know a lot of people say that FPTP leads to a more stable government with less need for coalition.
martin.orme : It really is a myth that there will be more coalitions and there have been exit polls to prove this. In the last 25 years that would have been one coalition, the current one. And it would even have increased majorities such as in 1997. Australia use AV and have had fewer collations than we have in the last 70 years.
abi : But the reason that happens martin is because under 50% of the people who vote dont actually rank their candidates, so they treat it exactly like FPTP.
martin.orme : And that is perfectly within their right if they feel that one party represents their views entirely.
**Helen** : What happens if people don't rank their votes - is it a spoiled ballot?
Huda : It isnlt a spoilt ballot.
abi : It isnlt compulsory to rank candidates!
Huda : It is best of both systems!
WayneS : A question to pro-av people: when you say that the current system doesn't mean one person one vote, isn't it just the case that some candidates are unpopular and in some areas, some parties are very popular? Doesn't responsibility for safe seats really lie with the people who make them safe by always voting for the same parties?
Scary Monster : But does living in an area that has a safe seat mean that someone who lives their isn't entitled to the opportunity to vote for what they really want?
martin.orme : Wayne - that is true if it constitutes over 50% of the vote, but if it is under this then the seat is then both a safe seat but the MP only represents a minority.
Scary Monster : Without knowing that doing so is essentially wasting their vote.
WayneS : People are still entitled to vote for what they really want in a safe seat, but the candidate they vote for may not be as popular as the candidate who gets the most votes. If a seat is safe, that is because a party has received the most votes there in every election. That is surely the fault of the people who voted for that party.
Also, if I put a candidate second or third, I obviously don't want that candidate to win. If I did I would have put the candidate first, so if that candidate ends up winning, the candidate I support will still lose, and a candidate I don't support will win.
yellowseahorse : But you might support them *more.*
Fostress : When you say 'the most votes' Wayne - this can sometimes be only 30 or so percent of the votes can't it - so more people want a range of other parties. I guess some people say that the benefits of AV is that the other 70 percent have a chance to say if they really don't want the 30% candidate to win (by putting them last).
WayneS : I don't support them that's why I didn't put them first.
Sarah19 : But you're not obliged to put any down you dont want. You can just vote for the one you want and leave it.
yellowseahorse : Even if you put A first, you might put B second just because you'd prefer to have B over C.
WayneS : My understanding of AV is that if under FPTP the winning candidate doesn't have 50% of the vote, the bottom candidate is eliminated and the second preferences of the people who voted for that candidate are distributed to the other candidate. This keeps happening until the 50% figure is reached. So isn't it the case that under AV, a small percentage of people could have a lot more influence than the majority of voters who will have voted for the two most popular candidates?
Scary Monster : No Wayne, it might not be until their votes are counted that you get the outcome, but that doesn't mean that they carry more influence than anyone else.
yellowseahorse : They still only really get one vote, it just gets redistributed.
Fostress : So in the end, everyone is voting for one of the two final candidates?
Scary Monster : Yes, pretty much, although it might not always get down to one of two final candidates. e.g. if you've got four candidates, one gets 45% of the votes, two more get 25% each and the last one gets 5% then the 5% votes get reallocated and they all chose the most popular guy then they'd get in, with two others still in the running.
WayneS : But the second preferences of the people who voted for the second and third most popular candidates, wouldn't be counted if they weren't needed. A larger percentage of people would have voted for them than the bottom two minor candidates, yet the smaller percentage who voted for the bottom two candidates are the ones whose second preferences would be used if only two rounds were needed.
WayneS : That doesn't seem fair, that the 5%'s votes get redistributed, but the larger percentages 2nd preferences don't matter in the end because they aren't needed.
Scary Monster : Yes Wayne, but the people whose votes get transferred essentially get their first vote binned. It's not perfect, but it's much better than FPTP and that's the only choice we have at the moment, AV or FPTP.
WayneS : They get their first vote binned because they are a minority which doesn't have enough support.
Scary Monster : Yup
WayneS : Under FPTP, the first preferences of everybody get counted, so everybody has the same degree of influence. Under alternative vote, the 1st preferences of every voter get counted, but the 2nd preferences of some voters get counted, meaning some people have more influence than others.
abi : I agree with Waynes points entirely. I feel that AV would give undeserved weight to peoples minor choices.
Scary Monster : On the flip side Wayne, the final result is one that has at least moderate support from a much higher proportion of people than FPTP would give you.
Huda : It would also mean that voters would look more into what the parties manifestos say, making sure who they vote for is who they prefer in terms of what they are putting on the table.
WayneS : Can you all sum up AV in one sentence? I noticed the Electoral Commission needed 349 words to explain it. If people are to be engaged in politics, it should be possible to explain the voting system in one sentence.
yellowseahorse : Here is the results of an election for my student union, (using AV) it might help people to see it written out.
Scary Monster : AV in one sentence: It gives you the opportunity to vote as your first choice for who you really want to win the election, then your second choice can be used to keep the scum out.
WayneS : Focusing on the campaigning, I notice that Nick Clegg said over the weekend, that people should vote for AV because the BNP and Robert Mugabe support FPTP. How do you feel about this campaign technique? I wonder if Nick Clegg would support FPTP if Nick Griffin and Robert Mugabe supported AV?
Scary Monster : That's a pants campaigning technique. FPTP is the most pathetic version of an election system ever, and anything else is better than it, so vote for AV as a start for chance.
WayneS : I can sum up mine in twelve words. Under first past the post, the candidate with the most votes wins.
Huda : AV lets you vote for who you really want, it gives us a better say on who our MP is, will make them work harder for our votes and finally will encourage us voters to really read up what each party is saying!
Scary Monster : Under AV, the candidate with the most overall support wins.
abi : In summary I think that AV doesnt solve the problems of FPTP, nor does it provide the benefits of PR.
UK Referendum debate
Not sure whether to say 'yes' or 'no' to voting reform in the UK referendum on May 5th? Our recent debate may help with your decision.
We invited three campaigners from the Political Academy to share their views on the Alternative Vote (AV) and argue their case for and against. You can find out more about their political interests and background on the discussion boards.
Alternative voting basically means a different way of electing MPs than the one we have now. Under the proposed new system voters would have the chance to put first, second, third preference (and so on) instead of just putting one cross for one candidate.
Confused? Check out www.whatyousaying.orgs handy bite-sized guide to what the referendum is about.
**Helen** : Welcome! First off, who is for AV who is against and who is undecided?
yellowseahorse : yes to AV.
Huda : I'm YES to AV .
abi : I'm no to AV.
Sarah19 : I'm yes to AV.
**Helen** : Ok, Huda, do you want to kick off then and give us your reasons for why you're pro?
Huda : Ok, I'm pro because I think it's a fairer system. I think it's fairer because it means that MPs would have to work really hard to keep their seats rather than be complacent and assume they will stay put. By working harder I mean getting their communities votes and putting in the effort! Campaigning and really understanding what people want from their government locally.
rose : This is because under AV MPs would have to get over 50% of the first preference votes to win.
abi : I think that AV is an inconsequential system, it's not quite Proportional Representation (PR) and not First-Past-The-Post (FPTP the current system), so what is it really?
Sarah19 : A compromise.
abi : It's basically just a bit of political propaganda that the Lib democrats will wrangle out of the coalition.
Fostress : Do you think that FPTP is a better system abi?
abi : I think that FPTP is probably the most fair - one person, one vote, so like, you get a clear outcome.
yellowseahorse : FPTP isn't really "one person, one vote" though. Your vote can mean near to nothing depending on who you vote for in your constituency.
martin.orme : l'm strongly in favour of the change to AV. abi - the difference with AV is that every vote matters.
abi : In what way martin?
martin.orme : AV means everyone has a say who will be elected, no one is pushed to the sidelines and MPs will have to listen to people outside their core support base in a way that they are not currently doing. It will give more power to people and less to Whitehall.
abi : I just feel that in theory AV would be better, but in practice it wouldn't solve the flaws of FTPT - and I admit there are some - and neither would it bring the purported benefits of PR.
Fostress : What do you think are the flaws of FTPT then Abi? It sounds like you don't think it is fair, but don't think AV is the answer?
abi : i think that FPTP does support safe seats a bit too much.
NINA! : I think all voting is a waste of time! They are all useless!
Huda : I understand that some young people may believe voting is a waste of time but it is an opportunity to voice your opinion in one way or another, we are fortunate to have the chance.
martin.orme : PR is also my preferred system in many aspects. I think anyone who supports PR should realise that AV is the reform on offer currently. It isn't perfect but its a step forward from the outdated and corrupt FPTP. If we turn this chance down it will put back the process of reform for a generation.
Fostress : I know some people say that AV now will mean PR is less likely to happen in the future, what do you think about this Martin/anyone?
Huda : I believe that the referendum is a chance to change an old way of voting that hasn't been great in the past. It's time for a new way.
Sarah19 : I reckon it would open the doors to PR as people can see how effective the AV would be and FPTP will be a thing of the past.
abi : Change for change's sake is hardly a reason.
NINA! : I think it is fantastic that everyone can have their say and in theory each individual can have their voices heard, but when are we ever listened to? I also think politicians make false promises.
Fostress : I think some people might say that AV means people are more listened to. Would anyone agree?
martin.orme : AV is a fundamental improvement on FPTP, it will mean that there are fewer safe seats for one. It will also mean that MPs have to listen to constituents.
Huda : I agree Fostress, I also think that it would decrease the chance of extremists getting seats.
Sarah19 : I think it will make parliament more representative of society as more parties that people believe in the real world will have a voice in parliament. This could possibly help with issues around diversity too.
yellowseahorse : It will mean MPs working harder to get a seat by appealing to a larger group of people and then working harder to keep it.
abi : I think PR will make parties more representative not AV.
martin.orme : It will also mean it will be much easier to vote MPs out if they fail to live up to promises. It typically takes around three parliaments to vote out government. In effect this will mean that governments will no longer take advantage for the best part of their term and suddenly start listening to us just before elections.
Huda : Yeah and banish the 'jobs for life culture' in parliament.
abi : AV is a compromise that doesnt solve the flaws of FPTP.
martin.orme : It solves many if not all of the flaws. The choice is FPTP or AV. AV is more democratic and will mean that parliaments are a truer representation of peoples views.
**Helen** : What do pro AV people say to the likelihood of their being more coalition governments and what will the impact of this be?
Fostress : Yeah, I know a lot of people say that FPTP leads to a more stable government with less need for coalition.
martin.orme : It really is a myth that there will be more coalitions and there have been exit polls to prove this. In the last 25 years that would have been one coalition, the current one. And it would even have increased majorities such as in 1997. Australia use AV and have had fewer collations than we have in the last 70 years.
abi : But the reason that happens martin is because under 50% of the people who vote dont actually rank their candidates, so they treat it exactly like FPTP.
martin.orme : And that is perfectly within their right if they feel that one party represents their views entirely.
**Helen** : What happens if people don't rank their votes - is it a spoiled ballot?
Huda : It isnlt a spoilt ballot.
abi : It isnlt compulsory to rank candidates!
Huda : It is best of both systems!
WayneS : A question to pro-av people: when you say that the current system doesn't mean one person one vote, isn't it just the case that some candidates are unpopular and in some areas, some parties are very popular? Doesn't responsibility for safe seats really lie with the people who make them safe by always voting for the same parties?
Scary Monster : But does living in an area that has a safe seat mean that someone who lives their isn't entitled to the opportunity to vote for what they really want?
martin.orme : Wayne - that is true if it constitutes over 50% of the vote, but if it is under this then the seat is then both a safe seat but the MP only represents a minority.
Scary Monster : Without knowing that doing so is essentially wasting their vote.
WayneS : People are still entitled to vote for what they really want in a safe seat, but the candidate they vote for may not be as popular as the candidate who gets the most votes. If a seat is safe, that is because a party has received the most votes there in every election. That is surely the fault of the people who voted for that party.
Also, if I put a candidate second or third, I obviously don't want that candidate to win. If I did I would have put the candidate first, so if that candidate ends up winning, the candidate I support will still lose, and a candidate I don't support will win.
yellowseahorse : But you might support them *more.*
Fostress : When you say 'the most votes' Wayne - this can sometimes be only 30 or so percent of the votes can't it - so more people want a range of other parties. I guess some people say that the benefits of AV is that the other 70 percent have a chance to say if they really don't want the 30% candidate to win (by putting them last).
WayneS : I don't support them that's why I didn't put them first.
Sarah19 : But you're not obliged to put any down you dont want. You can just vote for the one you want and leave it.
yellowseahorse : Even if you put A first, you might put B second just because you'd prefer to have B over C.
WayneS : My understanding of AV is that if under FPTP the winning candidate doesn't have 50% of the vote, the bottom candidate is eliminated and the second preferences of the people who voted for that candidate are distributed to the other candidate. This keeps happening until the 50% figure is reached. So isn't it the case that under AV, a small percentage of people could have a lot more influence than the majority of voters who will have voted for the two most popular candidates?
Scary Monster : No Wayne, it might not be until their votes are counted that you get the outcome, but that doesn't mean that they carry more influence than anyone else.
yellowseahorse : They still only really get one vote, it just gets redistributed.
Fostress : So in the end, everyone is voting for one of the two final candidates?
Scary Monster : Yes, pretty much, although it might not always get down to one of two final candidates. e.g. if you've got four candidates, one gets 45% of the votes, two more get 25% each and the last one gets 5% then the 5% votes get reallocated and they all chose the most popular guy then they'd get in, with two others still in the running.
WayneS : But the second preferences of the people who voted for the second and third most popular candidates, wouldn't be counted if they weren't needed. A larger percentage of people would have voted for them than the bottom two minor candidates, yet the smaller percentage who voted for the bottom two candidates are the ones whose second preferences would be used if only two rounds were needed.
WayneS : That doesn't seem fair, that the 5%'s votes get redistributed, but the larger percentages 2nd preferences don't matter in the end because they aren't needed.
Scary Monster : Yes Wayne, but the people whose votes get transferred essentially get their first vote binned. It's not perfect, but it's much better than FPTP and that's the only choice we have at the moment, AV or FPTP.
WayneS : They get their first vote binned because they are a minority which doesn't have enough support.
Scary Monster : Yup
WayneS : Under FPTP, the first preferences of everybody get counted, so everybody has the same degree of influence. Under alternative vote, the 1st preferences of every voter get counted, but the 2nd preferences of some voters get counted, meaning some people have more influence than others.
abi : I agree with Waynes points entirely. I feel that AV would give undeserved weight to peoples minor choices.
Scary Monster : On the flip side Wayne, the final result is one that has at least moderate support from a much higher proportion of people than FPTP would give you.
Huda : It would also mean that voters would look more into what the parties manifestos say, making sure who they vote for is who they prefer in terms of what they are putting on the table.
WayneS : Can you all sum up AV in one sentence? I noticed the Electoral Commission needed 349 words to explain it. If people are to be engaged in politics, it should be possible to explain the voting system in one sentence.
yellowseahorse : Here is the results of an election for my student union, (using AV) it might help people to see it written out.
Scary Monster : AV in one sentence: It gives you the opportunity to vote as your first choice for who you really want to win the election, then your second choice can be used to keep the scum out.
WayneS : Focusing on the campaigning, I notice that Nick Clegg said over the weekend, that people should vote for AV because the BNP and Robert Mugabe support FPTP. How do you feel about this campaign technique? I wonder if Nick Clegg would support FPTP if Nick Griffin and Robert Mugabe supported AV?
Scary Monster : That's a pants campaigning technique. FPTP is the most pathetic version of an election system ever, and anything else is better than it, so vote for AV as a start for chance.
WayneS : I can sum up mine in twelve words. Under first past the post, the candidate with the most votes wins.
Huda : AV lets you vote for who you really want, it gives us a better say on who our MP is, will make them work harder for our votes and finally will encourage us voters to really read up what each party is saying!
Scary Monster : Under AV, the candidate with the most overall support wins.
abi : In summary I think that AV doesnt solve the problems of FPTP, nor does it provide the benefits of PR.