No2AV Objections Answered #yes2av #no2av

I’ve been volunteering for the Yes campaign for a while now, and I’ve heard surprisingly few arguments put to me against AV and for First Past The Post. I’ll try, in this post, to answer all of the ones I’ve either seen online or come across while campaigning. Some of these arguments appear strong at first, others pitiful, but they’re all genuine arguments from genuine No supporters. I’ll try to put a case against the arguments, but you may, of course, remain unconvinced.
If you have other arguments, please make them in the comments. However, be aware that I have a fairly strict moderation policy – genuine discussion gets as much free reign as possible, but derailing and acting in bad faith gets you banned.

It’s Too Expensive
I’ll deal with this one first, because it’s the main plank of the No campaign’s advertising, and it’s simply a lie. They’ve taken advantage of the fact that there appear to be no laws regulating political referendum campaign advertising (as opposed to election campaigns) to simply make up a huge number as the new cost.

It’s Too Complicated To Explain
This one comes from none other than David Cameron, the Prime Minister, who has a first class honours degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics from Oxford university. Shame that degree obviously didn’t require learning to count. AV is a simple system – it’s a run-off, where the least popular candidates get eliminated, like in X-Factor. Except you rank the candidates in order so you can have an ‘instant run-off’ as they call AV in America. Just keep knocking out the least popular candidates until there’s a definite winner.
FPTP is more complicated, if you’re a voter who wants to influence the result.

Only three countries use AV in General Elections
This is just the argument from popularity. It means we should never be the first to do anything, or even among the first.

AV isn’t a proportional system
No, but neither’s FPTP. However, AV is likely to produce a far more proportional outcome, most of the time, because more people’s votes will count towards the outcome. And it’s far easier to move from AV to a proportional system like STV or AV+ (both of which are very, very similar to AV and would require only minor tweaking rather than a complete overhaul) than it is from FPTP. Anyone who wants electoral reform should choose AV – it’s both an improvement in itself and (if the people of the UK decide it’s what they want) a first step towards an even better system than that.

Nobody likes AV
I do. I’ve dealt with this one here.

I Want To Upset Nick Clegg
If you want to upset Clegg, vote against the Lib Dems in the Council elections at the same time, instead. Clegg, to be honest, isn’t all that interested in voting reform – it’s a big issue for the Lib Dems generally, but his own policy interests have been mostly in the areas of foreign relations (especially Europe) and civil liberties. I’m sure he wants a yes vote, but he won’t be unduly upset if it doesn’t go through.
On the other hand, me, my wife, Floella Benjamin, Eddie Izzard, Tony (Baldrick) Robinson, the leadership of the Labour party, Tony Benn, Colin Firth and my mate Dave (to take a random sample of vocal Yes supporters) *will* be upset if the No campaign wins, while Nick Griffin, Ian Paisley, David Cameron, Simon Munnery and Mark Millar will be upset if the *yes* campaign wins.
But rather than making decisions on major constitutional reform based on which public figures it’s likely to upset or cheer, why not decide based on the issue itself?

I want to end the coalition government
Thought experiment. You’re a Lib Dem MP. Your party’s in the odd position of both being in government for the first time in its history and having the lowest poll ratings it’s had in twenty years. You’ve just lost a huge number of council seats in a horrible local election, *AND* on the same day you discover that people have voted to keep the same unfair voting system which is biased against your party and which you’ve campaigned against all your life. Do you:
a) think “Oh, well now’s the *perfect* time to force a General Election! I like nothing more than losing my seat and seeing my party wiped out for a generation!” or
b) Not do that, and keep your job for at least another four years?

I like strong government
Personally, I’m not a huge fan of strong government – after all, the strongest form of government is dictatorship. I prefer a weak government that’s the servant of the people, rather than a strong one that makes the people its servant.
That said, AV isn’t any more likely to bring in coalitions or hung parliaments. In Australia, they’ve had *one* hung parliament in the last ninety years. In Britain, meanwhile, four of the last ten General Elections didn’t lead to conclusive results, and led to a rerun a few months later, a Labour government propped up by the Liberals, a Tory government propped up by the Ulster Unionists, and now a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition.
What causes hung parliaments and coalitions isn’t a particular voting system, but who people vote for.

The system we have has worked for centuries!
No, it’s worked for just over sixty years. Before that we had a weird hodge-podge system with some seats being STV or AV and others being FPTP.

It’ll help the BNP!
The BNP are one of only four parties against AV – the other three being the Tories, the DUP and the Communists. This is because AV is an anti-extremist system. It helps small parties that can still appeal to something of a broad base (e.g. the Greens), but small parties who appeal *only* to a small, bigoted minority won’t get anywhere, thanks to the need in AV to win the support of 50% of people who express a preference.

Some people get more votes than others
No, everyone gets one vote in each round of counting. Those whose top preference stays in for that round are counted as voting for that person again, while those whose top preference was knocked out get counted for their next preference.

Winston Churchill didn’t like AV
Churchill also didn’t like votes for women, supported sterilisation of the ‘feeble-minded’, held a number of racist views… and, in short, held all the views one would expect of a member of the Conservative Party who was twenty-seven when Queen Victoria died. While in many ways of course an admirable man, his views as to what was a suitable system for the Britain of the early 1930s might not be the best guide to what is best for the Britain of 2011.

Hitler liked PR, Superman doesn’t. Who do you prefer, Superman or Hitler?
This argument from the comic writer Mark Millar on Twitter was apparently intended seriously. He seems to have forgotten that Hitler was a fascist dictator, and one of the defining features of fascist dictators is their lack of support for democratic elections of any type.
Superman remains unavailable for comment as to his views on electoral reform.

ETA: wonderful Yes campaign postcard:
Yes postcard

This entry was posted in politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to No2AV Objections Answered #yes2av #no2av

  1. burkesworks says:

    Dunno about you, but we’ve a hard row to hoe this side of t’ hills. This Farcebook page which my colleague Albert passed on to me last night shows how tough it will be – because here we’re looking at folk more or less on the same side as us on many issues, not the swivel-eyed loon brigade.

    • Andrew Hickey says:

      Yeah. I think the comments there can be split into two groups:
      1) “No To AV, Yes To $OtherSystem”
      Which is all well and good, but we don’t have the option, and never will if we vote ‘no’.


      2) The “Lib Dems are teh EEVUL!”
      Those people are, unfortunately, arguing from pure… I don’t like the word ‘tribalism’ because most tribal societies don’t operate that way… but what-we-call-tribalism. They’re not, for the most part, actually *thinking* at all. I’ve tried, above, to show that that’s counterproductive, but I don’t think it’ll have much effect. It might have some though.

      (Note that that *doesn’t* mean that not supporting the Lib Dems, or the coalition, is irrational – obviously. But some of the people there appear motivated purely by anger. Making decisions based entirely on who it’ll upset or annoy is not the best way to make a difference).

      Am surprised at Hope Not Hate reposting lunatic Daily Mail propaganda though…

      • Dave Godfrey says:

        I really don’t understand the “its not exactly the system we want, so vote no” argument. Especially when the campaign are also using the “people are too thick to understand any other system” argument. So people won’t understand AV, but will understand STV/AV+/XYZ?

  2. “…and the Communists.”

    Asking purely out of interest, who are “the Communists” here? (Obviously some kind of People’s Front of Judea faction. Just curious which.)

    • Andrew Hickey says:

      This one – – the Morning Star ones, who still think Stalin was a really good bloke.
      Some of ‘Socialist Unity’ (insert hollow laugh here) are also on the No side, but given that the Greens are very prominent in SU and they’re on the Yes side, I think we can put Socialist Unity as fence-straddlers like Labour.

    • Andrew Hickey says:

      Although even the No people themselves seem confused, @VoteNo2AV on Twitter said it was the CPGB, but linked to the CP.
      RESPECT are also against AV, and the SWP are still discussing what the correct line to take is. All three (CP, RESPECT, SWP) support STV though, and are mostly saying “Aaargh ConDems!” rather than a reasoned argument.

      • The Communist Party of Britain versus The Communist Party of Great Britain versus The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist Leninist)… you really couldn’t make it up!

        It’s a joke, but perhaps a black one, that very few people seem to know what communism is all about and those who call themselves communists often seem among the most clueless!

        (NB for political trainspotters, it’s the New Communist Party who have the biggest love-in for Uncle Joe. The CPB will even go as far as to admit the Soviet Empire had “flaws”!)

        • Yeah, I have a reasonable amount of time for yeractual Communism, though my own combination of half-baked ideas gleaned from everyone from Libertarians to Anarcho-Syndicalists tends to balance out at Liberal.
          But I have no time at all for anyone who finds anything admirable in totalitarianism, whether of supposed ‘left’ or ‘right’ varieties…

          • Dave Godfrey says:

            I think totalitarianism is a great idea as long as I’m the one in charge. Unfortunately I’m not, am never likely to be, and probably wouldn’t want to do it even if someone asked nicely.

            So on balance I think its a bad idea.

            • Andrew Hickey says:

              I think even then it’s a bad idea. It sounds like a lot of work.

              (And, more realistically, anyone who’s studied cybernetics knows it’s a bad idea from a practical point of view).

            • My problem with a Dictatorship of Moi is that I wouldn’t trust my children not to be bastards.

            • I always wanted a t-shirt that said ‘Totalitarianism means never having to say you’re sorry’…

            • K says:

              Ah but would your second in command be a good person, and your third. I can see why an overconfident person might want a veto but having your ministers be unnaccountable well, I think Mark Davis made a good argument that the famines in both 19th century colonies and 20th century totalitarian states had the same root causes, including lack of democracy.

              Shame about the CPB, I always assume they are one of the good ones because of the Morning Star, until I read their other publications. Someone should send your Tony Benn/Nick Griffen comparison to the SWP, surely that’s gotta outweigh Clegg.

              Then again, I’m feeling fairly ticked off at the Lib Dems/Clegg too, and can’t imagine going from that to effectively supporting Cameron, how does that even begin to make sense!

              • Andrew Hickey says:

                Yeah, as a Lib Dem, but one on the left of the partty, I can definitely see people not being best pleased with the party now – I think we’ve prevented the government being a lot worse than it would have been, but it’s still not a good government, and it’s fair enough if people don’t like the party for that.
                But going from that to voting for a system which builds in a permanent systemic advantage to the Tories, just to annoy the leader of the Lib Dems, is an utterly asinine idea.

Comments are closed.