NOtoAV

No name for the Yes speakers who were supposed to be there? Or link to the Hallam FM coverage of the event?

Mr Clegg’s quoted list of benefits that the AV voting system will bring the UK is seriously flawed. As an ex-pat Brit and an Australian citizen, let me fill in a few of the blank spaces for Mr Clegg about the AV system in action:

• Current system means millions of votes ignored – many don’t vote.

By law, Australians have to register to vote at the polling stations on election day (it’s a $50 fine if you fail to vote). Those who do not wish to vote for either of the main parties (whom they know will be elected in their constituency) choose to spoil their vote rather than have it counted by one of the candidates they’d prefer not to see elected. Unless the UK changes the law and makes it compulsory to vote then you will still have many people failing to vote. In fact, more so, since one of the biggest criticisms of the AV system in Australia is that it is confusing to many people, especially the older generation, who accidentally spoil their vote.

• It leads to MPs in safe seats getting “jobs for life” – some linked to expenses scandal.

Some MPs in Australia have been sitting on ‘safe seats’ for 20+ years just the same as UK MPs. Only recently was the sitting MP of 32 years ousted in my own constituency. Even then, he received the higher percentage of the primary vote but lost the election when preferences (AV votes) were taken into account. He certainly doesn’t love the AV system any longer!
As for scandals…show me any government in any country and somewhere there will be expenses scandala. WE have them here in Australia so sorry Nick, AV won’t solve that problem for the UK.

• It was only good for a two-party system which no longer exists.

If the belief is that the AV system will see an end to the two-party system then think again. The TV analysts on election night here continual reduce our preferential system down to the phrase… ‘the two-party preferred’ vote. In all the years the AV system has been running in Australia, it has failed to see the rise of a third ‘major’ party.

• AV means parties have to reach out beyond core vote – broader appeal.

The appeal of the two main parties in Australia remains almost exactly the same as I remember the two main parties in the UK when I was a resident. You would think you were in the same country, in fact.

• AV means no wasted votes and end to tactical voting.

This is the one statement by Mr Clegg that is furthest from the truth. There are plenty of wasted votes (see the results of the last Federal election for the stats). This is despite Australia having compulsory voting. If you are not prepared to spoil your vote for fear of it falling into the hands of those candidates you don’t want to see elected, then you employ the well-known ‘reverse preferential voting tactics’. This means you work through whom you DON’T wish your vote to go to. They will go last numerically on the voting slip. Then you work your way through the mire of ‘who will be sending their preferences to whom’.
In Australia, for example, a vote for the Greens means you will be voting for Labor if the Greens’ candidate fails to secure enough primary votes to enter ‘the two-horse race for preferences’ after the first round. All the Green candidate’s votes will then get shunted across to the Labor candidate EVEN IF YOU PLACED THE GREENS AT No.1 AND LABOR LAST ON YOUR VOTING SLIP. Therefore, if you don’t want the Labor candidate to be elected you must place them last but then you must place the Greens candidate second to last to avoid voting for Labor indirectly because of the AV system. If this isn’t tactical voting, then I don’t know what is.

• AV is simple and fairer.

Simple? There are many genuine Australian voters who would like to vote for their candidate but are so confused by the system that they spoil their voting paper by…failing to number all the boxes…placing a cross…placing a tick…writing the same number twice…and so on. These genuine mistakes are most likely to happen with older voters – as will be the case in the UK, undoubtedly.
One other well-known way voters ensure that they do ‘fill in’ the voting slips is to…place a ‘1’ in the box for the candidate they are voting for and then to write the remaining numbers in order starting at the top box and ending at the last box on the slip (maybe up to 12 numbers sometimes). It has been proven statistically that candidates at the top of the slip (names are listed alphabetically) receive more votes than candidates at the bottom of the slip. This is in cases where the most popular candidate’s name is listed at neither the top nor the bottom of the voting list. This random manner of filling in the voting slip is termed ‘lotto voting’. It is simple and quick but it means that you don’t know which candidate ultimately got your vote if it wasn’t your first choice since preferences could send it anywhere.
Finally, if you wish to employ the reverse preferential voting tactics mentioned above, then this too is far from simple (but it is effective).

Fairer? Let me go back to my own constituency at the last Federal election. If we had had the first past the post system, then the sitting Liberal member for 32 years would still be our MP. He received the lion’s share of the primary vote (but less than the required 50.1%). However, preferences distributed by Labor and the Greens towards the national candidate after the first round of voting meant that the National candidate was elected after the two-party preferred count despite coming second in the primary vote. Thus, the most popular candidate in the constituency was not elected.

• It keeps the link between votes and constituencies.

Constituencies will have no greater or lesser say in the voting. The link has always been there and always will no matter which system you choose. What will change is that the popular vote may now be ignored and a second choice candidate elected. This could of course lead to extremists being elected – highly unlikely but possible nonetheless.

• It’s a once-in-a-generation chance for change.
Politicians can legislate for change whenever it takes their fancy so this is absolute nonsense. The UK needs to fully understand the pitfalls that voters and candidates will meet by studying the AV as it is used in the few countries that have it (so few that you can understand why it’s not a good choice). The preferential voting system is highly criticised in Australia in much the same way the first-past-the-post system is criticised in the UK. If you didn’t vote for the candidate who was ultimately elected, the feeling that your vote was wasted remains no matter which system is in use. This will NEVER change.
The AV system also hasn’t avoid Australia having a hung parliament – the current Australia parliament has a minority government given the majority voting power in the Federal parliament by three independent MPs. These men were dubbed, the Three Wise Men during the period when both major parties were courting their support. This should be good news to Mr Clegg as the leader of the UKs third major party. He might stay in a job, but then, he’d have managed that no matter which system was chosen because voters in both the UK and Australia are moving away from two party systems and the likelihood of there being more hung parliaments will increase and not decrease.

The AV system will result in week government with too many parties in parliament. There will be back room deals done between smaller parties to bolster their vote and remain in power. Stay with what we know and vote NO!