The true cost of AV.

In the last week (since the bill got Royal Ascent) the campaigns for the Referendum on First Past The Post (FPTP) Vs. the Alternative Vote (AV) voting systems has really stepped up a pace.

I've covered why I believe our current voting system should be upgraded to AV here, and I don't really want to cover old ground now.

What I do however want to mention is the cynical lies being used by the No2AV campaign.

It started when they announced that introducing AV would cost the UK Taxpayer £250m, and then used that as the basis for their advertising campaign.

Apart from the issue with these sickening adverts suggesting that the choice is between AV and other essential things (it isn't), the major problem is that the sums done to find the £250m quotation don't add up. the No campaign's own website break down the costs as being:

£82 Million - for the referendum itself

£9 Million - for voter education (ahead of the referendum)

£130 Million - for the introduction of electronic voting machines

£26 Million - for voter education (at the next elections)

Total Cost - £247 Million

And here's the problem with this valuation. It's Bullshit

Firstly, £82 Million for the referendum. This figure is massively exaggerated, simply because it's based on the cost of a referendum alone. but May 5th isn't just a referendum, there are local council elections happening around the country that day as well as elections in the devolved nations, the cost of adding a referendum to this is going to be minimal. the polling stations are already going to be open, the officers are already going to be present, the only actual extra cost to the existing elections is going to come from the paper and the time added to counting the election ballots.

Secondly, even if this £82 Million figure was correct. Whichever system people vote for it's going to cost that for the referendum itself. And yet you aren't seeing the No campaign asking people to boycott the ballot to save the money, people voting No is going to cost as much as people voting Yes. which brings me onto my third point...

£130 Million for the introduction of electronic voting machines, this is the biggest fabrication by the No campaign yet, there simply isn't going to be an introduction of electronic voting machines. Australia has managed to use AV in its elections since 1918 without the introduction of electronic voting machines, but the No campaign seems to assume the British electorate is too dumb to vote in order of preference without the help of machines. And even though the government and the Electoral Commission (the impartial organisation that organises the UK's elections and referendums) have both said there are no plans to introduce the machines, the No campaign is still using it's £250 Million figure as a reason to vote no.

Lastly, £26 Million in voter education in preparation for the next election is also massively inflated, currently your ballot paper lists candidates and asks you to mark an X in the box of the candidate you want to win. Simply changing that text to ask voters to put a 1 in the box of their preferred candidate and 2 in the box of their next preference and so on, will not cost £26 Million.

Unfortunately this £250 Million cost claim is just one of the No campaigns many attacks on the referendum and AV which doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but I guess when you're trying to defend an electoral system which no longer works properly and therefore can't defend it, all you can do is attack the proposed change.

Prepare to see much more of this negative campaigning from No2AV. Meanwhile, Yes to Fairer Votes (the Pro-AV campaign) has published this video of reasons to vote yes.

I know which side I'm on, can you see past No2AV's lies??

Vote YES in May

Shep

What America Needs Now...

Following the assassination attempt of US Senator Gabrielle Giffords on Saturday, the US needs to wake up to the danger of allowing free access to guns to almost all citizens without stringent checks, and needs to tone down the violent rhetoric in it's political debate.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution allows all citizens "to keep and bear arms", this has lead to a situation where a majority of Americans believe it is within their rights to own a firearm. Currently, for every 100 US citizens there are 90 legally owned guns.

Whenever there is a major shooting in the UK, the debate that follows is almost always on the control of guns and of the environment in which the shooting occurred, as seen with last years Cumbria Shootings and Northumbria Manhunt. But, because of the Second Amendment in the US the control of guns portion of debate is always missing, no politician will go near it, suggesting Americans should give up their guns is political kryptonite.

So, what should be done, I believe the senate needs to have an open and honest debate about the place of guns in society, with the aim of implementing Canadian-style gun control.

In Canada citizens are legally allowed to own guns but there are 4 steps to go through before being allowed a licence:
1. Pass a gun safety course
2. Provide three character references
3. Provide information on your marital status and financial affairs
4. Post this off and receive your licence within 4-6 weeks.

One other difference between the US and Canadian law is that in Canada self-defence is not a valid reason to hold a gun. This means that in Canada a much more reasonable proportion (22%) of households hold guns.

Now the other half of this debate is about the environment and glorification of guns, especially in politics. The Republicans (but to some degree Democrats too) have allowed a culture of violence to appear in their politics, instead of disagreeing in an open debate, senators have (literally) been making targets of those they disagree with, this simply has to end.

And no matter how you defend it, if your response to the shooting of someone you disagree with is to scrub your website of any inappropriate messages, then you have a guilty conscience, and for good reason.

Sarah Plain's map of senators who voted for a health care bill she disagreed with...

Glenn Beck being his usual opportunistic, hypocritical self:

Anyway, i'll leave you with this impassioned speech by Keith Olbermann on the shooting:




Shep

A Small Change...

On May 5th, The Coalition government will hold a referendum on replacing the current First Past the Post voting system with that of the Alternative Vote. This is an issue I am passionate about and will attempt to explain here the differences between the two systems, why there is such a debate going on about it, and hopefully convince you to vote Yes to AV.

So, what is First Past The Post.
First Past The Post  (FPTP) is our current voting system, voting itself is simple, for each constituency there are a list of candidates, we mark an X onto the candidate we most want to win in our constituency, from there all the votes are counted and the candidate with the most votes wins the seat, seems simple enough. Only it's not an entirely fair system, if there are say 5 candidates in a constituency, it is feasible that the winning candidate could win with only 21% of the vote, meaning 79% of votes cast are wasted, leading to scenarios like this in 2005...

Because of this the system creates safe seats, where one party can keep control of a particular seat because of an above average number of their voters in that area meaning the rest of the population in that area have little chance of changing their MPs and can theoretically be ignored, not very democratic.

Other issues include the fact that smaller parties are excluded, especially if they have a support all over the country (rather than isolated pockets of support), in last years elections UKIP received roughly 1 million votes, compared to the Conservatives 10 million, but because the support they had was not enough in any one seat to get them an MP those votes are wasted, whereas the Conservatives currently have 306 MPs.

Tactical voting is widely used under FPTP, this occurs where voters vote for a party which they do not fully support in order to keep out a party they don't want to win, (I myself tactically voted Labour in an attempt to prevent the Conservatives taking my constituency), this blurs voting intentions and means many thousands of people in swing seats give up their preferred vote in order to give another party a boost.

The final issue with FPTP is that it only really works in a 2-party political system (such as that of the US), but in britain we're increasingly becoming a three or multi-party system. In 1951 only 3.2% of votes cast were for someone other than the Conservatives or Labour, skip forward to 2010 and that figure stands at 34.9%.


So, if First Past The Post is broken, what is the Alternative Vote, and why is it better?
The Alternative Vote (AV) (Also known as Instant-Runoff Voting), is similar to FPTP but improves upon its weaknesses, so instead of marking an X next to the candidate they want to win, the voter instead ranks the candidates in order of preference (if you only want to choose one you're still free to do so), from there all first choice votes are counted and if the winner doesn't have the vote of 50% of the electorate the candidate ranking last is eliminated and the second preference votes for that candidate are then counted and added to the totals of the remaining candidates. This process is continued until one candidate has over 50% of the electorates support.


Some benefits of this system are that it means MPs have to work harder to gain and keep their constituents support, the need for tactical voting is removed as voters can put an undesirable choice as their last preference (or not vote for them at all) under AV, removing the need to vote for a second favourite party in order to keep another out.

It also removes safe seats, so that all MPs have to work hard to get the support of the electorate. Another benefit is obvious, it gives the voter a greater choice to choose between candidates.

One of the nicer changes AV would bring is a drop in negative campaigning, a candidate is less likely to attack another candidate if they feel they may well end up receiving some of their second choice votes.

Many people who oppose the introduction of AV claim that it doesn't result in 'strong government' and leads to more hung parliaments, this simply isn't true, since 1910 Australia (which uses AV) has had two hung parliaments, whereas in the UK, we've had 4. If anything AV will help our electoral system as we move away from a two-party system and help prevent future Hung Parliaments.

Also remember AV is already used in the UK, Labour, The Liberal Democrats, and (yes) The Conservatives all use AV to elect their leaders, isn't it time the public got the same choice?).

I think i've laid out the facts here for you to make up your own mind (hopefully, like me you'll agree AV is better), but before I go i'd like to make one more point. This is not a referendum on either the Coalition or the Liberal Democrats, voting no to spite Nick Clegg may seem like a good idea, but it would delight the Tories and mean we lose out on this once in a generation opportunity to change the way our democracy is run,. as always, others say it better, so here's this weeks editorial for The Independent:

AV is a good change on its own terms. It ensures that voters have an equal chance to influence the outcome in their constituency, and to express their preferences honestly so that they can be counted, even if they do not support the winning candidate.

The alternative vote is not perfection, or a magic solution to the problem of disillusionment with politics. Yet it is an important step towards a better democracy that empowers the voter, and so deserves our wholehearted support.

Shep

Vote Yes on May 5th