Sunday, 20 February 2011

No2AV scaremongering.

I am not surprised that the No to AV campaign is actually campaigning and trying to get people to vote in their favour, after all it is what they want.  However I am worried by the lies that they are spreading as facts as people might actually believe them.  I want people to vote based on the actual issues making an informed decision, not because they are afraid of fascists such as the BNP getting more than one vote.  See the email William Hague sent out to No2AV supporters.  The most worrying inaccuracy is:

* AV is unfair. With First Past the Post, everybody gets one vote. But under AV, supporters of extreme parties like the BNP would get their vote counted many times, while other people’s vote would only be counted once.
This is just plane wrong, scaremongering.  Each person has their vote counted once in each round of voting.  Just because you voted Conservative who make it through to the final round, so none of your alternatives are used, doesn't mean that your vote was counted once.  The vote was counted in the first round to determine it's position, then the same vote was counted again in the second round and so on.  The BNP's supporter would have had their vote for the BNP counted at each stage that they were still participating, then once the BNP have (hopefully) been eliminated their alternative preference (their highest alternative for a party that is still in the running) is counted at which point the votes that had already been made for the Conservatives are COUNTED AGAIN.  The only people who get their votes counted less are those who don't state a preference between the parties that remain.  

* AV doesn’t work. Rather than the candidate with the most votes winning, the person who finishes third could be declared the winner.

No the person who wins is the winner, and this is the first person to receive over 50% of the votes.  Just because they are not the majority first preference doesn't mean they finished third, it is intrinsically fairer as rather than having someone who say 30% like (based on first preferences) representing a whole constituancy there is someone who at least 50% of the people would prefer to see represent them.

I don't know the actual costings to go into that arguement but surely cost shouldn't be a factor when arranging a fair voting system?

Finally people do want AV, I know people for whom this is their first preference and just because others would rather see PR does not mean that we shouldn't declare our preference for AV over FPTP.

No comments:

Post a Comment