Why I have finally decided to vote no to AV

By Emma Burnell / @scarletstand

I have been struggling with my feelings on AV for a really long time*. Not least because I don’t really care that much. It’s quite a small change and there are good arguments on both sides. Sadly both campaigns have been utterly, utterly dreadful. Badly managed, insane tactics, negative shouty-fests over the lowest forms of argument. I hope if nothing else comes out of this debate, we at least have a look at how we campaign on the issues in this country. We have nothing to be proud of in the way this national discussion has been conducted. Most of the arguments put forward by both official campaigns have been specious at best. AV will patently not cost £250 billion, nor will it solve the problems of an unresponsive and out of date body politic.

I have tried extremely hard not to base my decision on my tribal allegiances. This has been made easier by the fact that there is no compelling argument one way of the other about whether AV will hurt or help Labour or the BNP which seem to be the two most often discussed parties. Frankly, I would rather beat the BNP on the issues than a technicality. As for Labour I want to see us in power. I don’t think there is clear-cut evidence that AV would have an effect on that (for example, experts say our majority would have been even greater in 1997 under AV, but so would the Tories in 1987).

There are good reasons to vote for AV. Having been six and two threes throughout the campaign, I know what they are. I get that people who live in a safe seat will get to express their preference, even while preferencing the leading candidates. Every 5 years, in the voting booths, people will feel they get a better chance to have a say in how they are represented, and that would be a good thing.

My reason for voting no is what happens in-between those 5 years. AV is currently being sold as a solution to all that ails the body politic. That is will make MPs “work harder” and that it will stop things like the expenses scandal. This is frankly insulting, but also a little worrying. OK quite a lot worrying. Leaving aside the insane notion that people working 14 hour days aren’t working hard enough, I worry that we don’t really know what we actually want from MPs. Do we want legislators or social workers? Constituency champions or Westminster players? If AV is adopted, I am deeply concerned that the actual changes that need to occur to the way Westminster is run to make it more representative both of the people and of the century in which we live will be kicked into the long grass. In fact it was in part this concern that kicked me over the edge when I saw the yes to AV broadcast.

However my main concern is the effect AV and the race for second preferences will have on representative politics. I am strongly of the opinion that the need for parties to “reach out beyond their core vote” will mean them fielding more and more often candidates intended to appeal generally. This is fine in a individual seat. It works very well for example when choosing a party leader, because being at roughly the centre of where your party are is not the same as being a centrist. But when replicated across the country, we will end up with a legislature made up from a far narrower group of people, with a narrower range of centrist stances. We will end up with greater freedom for voters to express their diverse opinions, only for them to be represented by a far less diverse group of elected representatives.

No electoral system is perfect. You just have to balance the negatives and the positives and make a choice. Mine won’t be a popular choice among my friends, but in the end, in a democracy, I have to vote the way I believe to be right.

*If AV+ had been on the ballot I would have voted yes in a heartbeat. I believe that this system would have balanced the flaw of local candidates appealing to the middle with the top up of diverse candidates. I still believe AV+ to be the best system of electing our representatives. But it’s not on the ballot.