My concerns were that a change to our voting system could lead to dangers such as extremist parties getting control or just ending up with chaotic and weak government. I also heard a lot of issues being raised by the opponents of AV. Here are some of those concerns answered:
Will it cost £250 million to run the new system
Well before we ask if that is true, lets consider that amount of money. It's really such a small amount of money when considered at a national level. Are we really going to dismiss ideas of democratic change just because it costs £5 per person? Is democracy not worth £5. I thought this was a non-issue from the start. I agree we should be careful about costs but nothing can be accomplished if we let the cost stop us in our tracks.
Having looked into the claim, it seems entirely incorrect anyway. The only increase in costs that I can see will be extra time it might take to count the votes. The Treasury already budgeted for the costs of the election and regardless of the outcome of the referendum, the cost of the next general election will be the same, something like £120 million.
This is an unfair mud-slinging argument and is out of line with the sensible politics that we ned to move towards in the future.
Will people who vote for extremist and fringe parties get more votes, or is their vote counted more than those who vote for the winning party?
This is a valid concern. Yes, under the AV system, people votes may be counted more than once! However, it does not mean it is unfair. In the end, each voter only has one vote. The same One Man One Vote system that we get from FPTP.
It's like this: if you had £1 to spend and you wanted to spend it on Cadburys chocolate, but there is no Cadburys chocolate left in the store, and you spent it on a Mars Bar instead, you still only spent £1.
The votes may be counted more because the AV system is more sophisticated than FPTP.
It's true that those who vote for the winning party will only have their vote counted once, but it's also true that those who vote for losing parties could have their vote counted multiple times, but in each case, there is only one vote per person.
It's about preferences. If I vote for the Environment Party as my first choice and the Steady Party as my second choice, I am saying this "I would like the Environment Party to win but if they are knocked out then I would be content with the Steady Party".
Is it true that the counting is not straightforward
Yes this is true when compared to the very simple way in which FPTP is counted. But do we want to reject a voting system just because it is more complicated to understand? Do we stay with bicycles because cars are more complicated? No, improvements can be more complicated. The challenge is for us to understand the more complicated system and then make a judgement based on a full understanding.
Will it lead to more hung parliaments and coalition governments?
No. This is not the reason that we are headed towards more hung parliaments, weaker governments and coalition governments. This trend is already happening under FPTP. It has happened since the 1950s, as we have moved from having just two or three main parties to having a larger number of parties to select from.
Yes we can expect more hung parliaments and coalition government because this is inevitable in multi-party politics.
It is no longer a two-party contest, as shown by the clear outcome of the 2010 general election in which no party secured a majority of seats. In the future we are more likely to get coalition government but that is what we want. Sure, everyone would prefer their chosen party to win but if the majority don't agree with us then we must compromise.
Will coalitions be able to implement their election promises?
If we all accept that coalition is inevitable and parties are open and honest about their intentions, then we should accept that coalition governments will make compromises. Is that such a bad thing? Look at what the current government has already achieved: a referendum on the voting system, avoidance of another war and occupation situation in Libya.
Will it lead to back room deals and dangerous compromises?
It will be about back room deals for sure. But so what? Cabinet is a back room - a private meeting - we trust the ministers to represent us fairly. It's the same with coalition negotiations and deals, we trust our chosen representatives to be fair.
The danger seen in compromises is that the will of the people will be watered down and a weak government will be unable to make progress on the policies that we want. The current coalition government shows us this is not the case. The average UK citizen wanted to to get involved in Libya and prevent massacre. The UK led the way in achieving this, without committing our troops to the ground. It was an excellent compromise that included the wishes of the majority of the UK people.
