Skip to main content

Vote Yes!

Tomorrow is the the vote to decide what system we want to elect our MPs to Westminster. First-past-the-post, the obvious system to use when 90% of people voted for two parties, is not a fair system to use in a multi-party democracy.

AV, however, is a simple, common-sense solution to having fair votes in a multi-party democracy:


Most elections under first-past-the-post are won in a small number of marginal seats. This increases apathy in our political system, as most people think that their vote won't make a difference. The public are getting more and more disenchanted with politics, and politicians. This is dangerous for demoncracy.

Under AV, your vote is much more likely to make a difference. AV reduces the number of safe seats and increases the number of marginals. Put simply, it gives more power to the voter. Full-stop. It's more democratic.

And I have to say the "No to AV" arguments are misleading to the point of being outright lies. And you have to wonder why they've not wanted to debate the merits of the two systems. Instead all they can say is "it's expensive" which is simply not true, and "it's too complicated" which is insulting to the British people.

But don't take my word for it. Go to the No to AV website, the Yes to AV website, and the BBC website for an objective view and decide for yourself. That's what I did.

Comments

DairyStateDad said…
Disclaimer #1: I have no personal dog in this fight as we say here in the U.S. because, well, I'm here in the U.S.

Disclaimer #2: I am absolutely for this approach and would like to see it here, as well. If I understand correctly, this is what has been called in our country "Instant Runoff voting." I think it is the right thing to do and I hope "Yes" wins in your referendum.

But all that said -- in the one actual experience I have had with Instant Runoff (when a group of about 400-500 Unitarian Universalists were voting to decide among a choice of three or four possible permanent sites for our weekly UU summer camp), after all the votes were tallied, including bringing in the 2nd and 3rd place choices, the final selection won by a margin of


Just. One. Vote.

Just sayin'... :-)
6:27 pm
Rich said…
I totally agree!

Bit of cross-blog advertising here, sorry, but I was getting frustrated with the verbosity of 'yes' campaigns so I tried to sum up the reasons in a nutshell here:

http://richd.me/2011/05/the-yes-vote-needs-you/
6:40 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The dumbest thing about American Unitarian Univeralism

I'm glad Peacebang started blogging about this cos I was about to, and now it's like I'm joining in with a conversation rather than doing a big rant and having a go at Americans (though that is always fun ;-)). Why the hell do American (or is it just in New England??) UU churches take, like a quarter of the year off? In the summer they close. They CLOSE!! A church, closing. It's so bloody weird and wrong. Where does it come from? Why? Why? Why? Why do people need church less in the summer? Where are people supposed to go? Where is the Divine supposed to go? My church in Boston didn't close exactly, but moved to the smaller upstairs chapel, but the minister still had all that time off. Now I've spent most of my life around teachers and priests, both jobs where people think people don't put many hours in, when in fact they put in loads ('you only work Sunday mornings/9 to 3.25'). Teachers work hard and need their long holidays. Ministers work hard, a...
4 comments
Read more

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...
14 comments
Read more

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with ...
3 comments
Read more