One Person, One Vote

March 27th 2011 | tags: , , , , , , , , ,

This coming week, NO to AV will be launching the next phase of the campaign, urging people to go out and vote ‘no’ on 5 May to ‘Keep One Person, One Vote’. This message emphasises that not only is a ‘no’ vote about the huge cost of AV, and the political consequences of changing our voting system, it is also about the fundamental right of every citizen to cast an equal vote.

For centuries, generations of reformers were inspired by a simple principle. They believed that because each person is equal, they should each have an equal vote.

It took many years for that principle to become part of our politics. But today, that principle stands as the cornerstone of our democracy. We call it: one person, one vote.

Under AV, people are asked to rank candidates in order of preference. When the votes are counted, if the person coming first doesn’t have 50% of the vote, the votes of the lowest ranked candidates are recycled until someone gets over the winning margin.

In this way it allows people who vote for the minor, fringe parties to have their votes counted several times, while those voting for mainstream parties can have their voted counted just once. AV is the opposite of one person, one vote. In fact, if you support a less popular party, you are more likely to have your vote counted multiple times.

In close marginals, why should the winner be decided by the second preferences of fringe parties? It’s absurd and unfair that these parties would be rewarded, while mainstream voters don’t get to have their second preferences considered.

One person, one vote is our legacy to the world; when other nations threw off the shackles of tyranny and dictatorship, they were inspired by our Parliamentary democracy.

Look around the world and we see the legacy: 2.4 billion people choose their governments using first-past-the-post. That’s 2.4 billion people – each with one ballot paper and one, equal, vote.

Vote NO to AV on 5 May and keep One Person, One Vote

Comments


  • Peter Hannaford

    Why are we just being asked to choose between one flawed system and another? As a voter both FPTP and AV allow for frustration. FPTP doesn’t allow a voice at a national level (so that a party with more overall votes loses) and AV puts in a candidate based on second or third choices – hardly ideal. Surely we want a system that PRIMARILY recognises preferences on a national level (who ends up running the country). Sadly neither of these systems fully address this fundamental need and we end up with a politically fudged ‘either or’ referendum.

  • Tixallman

    This is what it’s all about: absolute equality. Billionaire or fixed income, tinker, tailor, candlestick maker we all have one, equal, cross. No manipulation. No maths smoke and mirrors.

    But if Electoral Reform services owns the software of so many returning officers, can we really win? the

  • Barrie Rigg

    AV forces people to chose candidates that they would normally ignore. I supose if you only vote for one candidate then your ballet paper would be deamed spoilt.
    This system seams more in the intrests of politictions than it does the public. I don`t want my vote to be used by others who i have no intrest in.
    They claim that first past the post does not repersent those who voted against the winners as more people voted against the winners than those who did’nt, EG 10000 votes (v) for the Conservatives, 80000 (v) for Labour, 60000 (v) for Liberal`s and 40000 (v) for the rest.
    So that, in thier terms is 180000 (v) against the Conservatives, yet if u take the Conservatives votes into account more people voted against the losers (200000 (v) against Labour alone) than did against the Conservatives.
    So, where do they get that first past the post isn`t a fair representative of the people. I think they just stop looking when they found an idea that was in thier favour.

  • NickW

    Under AV all votes are equal, regardless of the preference.

    e.g. The third fourth, fifth and sixth preferences of a Raving Looney Supporter are exactly equal to the first preference Vote of a Labour or Conservative Supporter.

    First preferences can be outvoted by the fringe preferences of the Voter who supports fringe Parties.

    This is insane.

  • NickW

    How is the Count going to be done under AV.?

    If someone votes for the candidate who comes last, it is perfectly possible that that one ballot paper will cast effective first, second, third and fourth preference votes.
    The count obviously can’t be done by assigning piles of ballot papers to each candidate.
    And you can’t audit the count by comparing the number of votes cast to the number of ballot papers either, because some ballot papers may represent effective votes for four or more candidates.

    So what’s to stop someone adding votes for a candidate, how do you detect it; how do you prevent it?

    How do you do recounts?

    How do you satisfy observers and candidates that the election isn’t corrupt?

    If you have a computer system, who audits the programme for bias, who audits data input, how do you satisfy an observer that the election isn’t corrupt?

    Will somebody do a comedy video of an AV Count; after all a farcical system lends itself well to comedy?

  • fred

    What is to stop the person who counts each ballot paper, from filling in any empty spaces.

    These may have been left blank by people only voting once.

    This is further compromised by the fact the ballot papers, are filled in with pencil.

    Plenty of scope for fiddles.

    Contrast this with one single cross, in first past the post

    Concerned Wirral

  • RH

    Why should a second or third preference be counted equally against a first preference vote?

  • Barbarafletcher337

    My family and I have been discussing the referendum. The published information does not answer our questions, and we have not found help on the internet.
    We created a hypothetical election between five candidates, Black, Brown, Green, Grey, and White.
    On the first count Black had 30% votes, Brown 25%, Green 20%, Grey15% and White 10%.
    White’s votes are then redistributed, which does not give any candidate more than 50% of the total votes cast.
    We understand the process so far.

    Grey’s votes are now redistributed. What happens to the votes which prefer White, who has already been eliminated?
    Still no candidate has 50% of the vote, but as both the later preferences of people who originally voted for Grey and White are heavily in favour of Green, he now has a higher percentage of votes than Brown. Is it Brown (the current third) or Green (the original third) whose votes are redistributed?

    We would like to have a precise explanation of how the second and third (and subsequent) distribution of votes is carried out. Is it laid down by law, or by a decision of the Electoral Commission which has been fully publicised beforehand, or left to individual returning officers to decide as the need arises?

    As some voters will not complete a full order of preference, it is possible that no candidate will reach 50% of the original vote. Does this mean no one is elected and the seat remains vacant?

    Barbara Fletcher

  • Charles Hearne

    After trawling the internet to gather information on the pros and cons of this new proposed voting system I stumbled across The Deputy Mayor of London Richard Barnes opnions on why he will personally be voting no in the AV refurendum http://t.co/5Kb4vjv A system that allows such equality completly discredits the idea of vote. FPTP although a flawed system in its own rights at least presents a truer representation of what the voters want. Surely allowing your vote to be used to represent a canditate of which you have no interest in completly undermines the pillars of equality on which our ‘peoples’ democarcy was founded in 1707.

  • albert webb

    We in Australia have the AV vote and it does not work fairly. Many people wish we had the one man one vote system.
    Look at our last election here, the people are fed up with labour and it was only with the AV system that they were elected again.
    Stick with the way you now vote, only the loosers want to change it.
    A. Webb
    Brisbane