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.


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'... :-)
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:

Popular posts from this blog

From liberalism to radicalism

I've been reflecting recently on the journey I've been making from liberalism to radicalism, and how I'm beginning to see it as a necessary evolution if you're not going to get stuck in a kind of immature liberalism that fails to serve both you and the world. By liberalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise personal freedom and not being restricted by the patterns of the past. By radicalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise justice, solidarity, and liberation from oppression. Yes, I'm using broad categories here. Let me give an example. Let's talk about sexual liberation in a Western context for example. We can talk about women getting more agency over their bodies; gay and bi people being able to have sex with one another and marry one another; we can talk about the work of overcoming shame around sexuality. All of that is liberalism. It's good stuff. It's still ongoing. So we might ask the question "where next for sexu

Am I an activist?

  I remember being at some protest outside the Senedd once, and someone introduced me to someone else, and said, "Stephen is an activist." I remember thinking - am I? I don't know. What does it mean to be an activist? Who gets to use that title? Am I an activist because I turn up at a few protests? Or do I have to be one them organising the protest to be an activist? Do I have to lead? Do I have to do the organisational work to be an activist? Because the truth is that since I moved to Cardiff I have kept myself at the periphery of a lot of activist groups. I go to meetings, I hear about things, I turn up at protests, but I have rarely got really fully involved. Why is that? It's not for the reason that I don't have time. I do, in fact. But often I sit in these meetings and protests and think "Is this effective? Is it worthwhile? Is it going to produce something at the end of it all that is worth the effort?" I suppose, coming from the world of church I

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