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

Drop the Free Christian!

Let me preface what I'm going to say by first saying this: I am a Christian. It's taken me a long time to be able to say that, and to know what I mean by that, and I'm very lucky that in the Unitarian church I have been given the space to come to that decision in my own time, on my own terms. But I am a Christian, I'm more Christian now than I have been for years. Now: I want us to drop this "Free Christian" from our title. It's a silly phrase that we need to get rid of. Why? "The General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches" is a long and unwieldy title. It would be much better if we traded under something like "Unitarians in Britain." It gives the impression that there are two separate and distinct groups: "Unitarians" and "Free Christians," this is not the case. It's not that there are Unitarians (who are not Christians) and "Free Christians" who are not Unitarians. There are not two dif...
21 comments
Read more

Clergy-wear during protests

OK, I'm wandering into the territory of Beauty Tips for Ministers here, but a couple of recent conversations have brought up the issue of what clergy should wear for protests. I know a number of Ministers who only wear clerical collars for protests. The logic is that it's important to identify as a Minister when you're supporting something society doesn't expect clergy to. So Ministers will wear a collar at gay prides or pro-choice rallies to make this point. Now I could understand this if it you wore a collar going about your general business, and also did during a protest, but I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of wearing clerical wear ONLY for protests. The seems to be something worth exploring. I have said before that I'm not in favour of special titles or clothing for religious leadership, mainly because Jesus explicitly said this was a lot of nonsense. Religious leaders should not need these articial crutches. I have no problem with certain liturgical c...
11 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