Confused to AV

By Mike Haw

I sit in neither the Yes2AV camp, nor the No2Av camp. I can’t even be considered in the Meh2AV, as I’ve followed the debate between the two sides with interest, although I could do without the petty squabbling.

Where I sit is quite squarely in another bracket all together, what I’ll call Confused2AV.

Why confused? Well, quite simply, I’m in favour of a system of proportional representation; I believe that first past the post does not allow everyone in our society to have their voice heard; but I’m quite clear that the alternative vote system will not solve this issue.

I’m between a rock and a hard place. Will a Yes vote in May bring a PR system any closer? Perhaps. Will a No vote push it further away? Maybe. No-one can say with any certainty which way it would go.

A No vote could conceivably be spun by pro-reformers as a rejection of the AV system rather than an affirmation of the status quo as others will view it.

Similarly, a Yes vote could allow those against reform to say “there, you’ve got what you wanted, stop complaining”.

All I can say with any certainty is that the arguments put forward by both the Yes2Av and No2AV campaigns are unconvincing.

Let me take one example – that of keeping out the BNP. Both sides claim that to vote for the other would allow the extremist parties a greater opportunity to have influence. They can’t both be right, surely?

But, the truth is, they are. The first past the post system, in an election with a low turn out, could allow an extremist party to be victorious. Similarly, the AV system may encourage some parties to be elected on the back of an extremist party’s second preferences.

The fact is no matter what electoral system we use, extremist parties will have an influence on the outcome. As a proponent of PR, I accept the possibility that a BNP representative could be elected to our parliament as happened in the London Assembly elections in 2008. If enough people vote for an extremist party, however repulsive their views, why shouldn’t their votes be recognised?

The challenge for us as a party would be to win the argument against them, encouraging the electorate to reject their ideas. This strikes me as a much better way of challenging extremism than trying to design an electoral system that attempts to prevent their victory.

With both sides falling into negative campaigning, flawed arguments and petty name calling, I’m no nearer to being convinced which way to cast my vote.

There’s no option to vote for ‘none of the above’, or ‘re-open nominations’.

I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, but at the moment, spoiling my ballot looks the least worst option.