Robert Smith

27th Apr 2011

There are a range of valid reasons why voters should place a cross next to the No option in this year’s Referendum. Under AV exists the simple truth that supporters of fringe parties who come towards the bottom of the first preferences count are likely to have their votes counted more than once, whereas voters of the mainstream parties will not. Not only does this significantly undermine the principle of democracy, the idea that each person has one, equal vote, but it will likely lead to greater tactical voting. Furthermore, the AV system is complicated (at least to the majority of the electorate), time-consuming and generally unpopular in the three countries that have adopted it.

However, while sometimes preaching the valid, resounding points above, No to AV have focused to a great extent on the projected cost of adopting the Alternative Vote. Anyone who has followed the posters and literature released by the No campaign will most likely remember those which suggested a figure of £250 million. The new-born baby needs a maternity unit not AV, and the soldier needs bulletproof vests not AV, they say. However, it is clear that this figure of £250million is either a calculated estimate at best, or an exaggerated partisan attempt at worst. Whilst it is inevitable that AV will cost more than first past the post even in the long run, there is still no concrete evidence to back up this figure. In fact, it should be observed that the majority of this estimated sum is the cost of holding the referendum, and will be spent regardless of whether AV is backed at the ballot box or not; in which case the whole argument of mentioning the cost becomes simply invalid.

Back in February, I thought that the No campaign were making a huge mistake by taking this route. I thought that the issue of cost was a petty argument, and really did nothing to explain why first past the post is a voting system worth having more than AV. I thought that No to AV would be criticised for negative campaigning, and that the Yes campaign would continue to extend their lead towards a comfortable referendum win.

It seems now, I was wrong. A recent poll by ComRes shows that the more people find out about AV, the less they like it. Support for the Yes campaign has remained static; they’re not persuading people (36% in January to 37% now), while support for the No campaign has risen from 30% in January to currently 43%. The pollster indicates that the majority of people who answered ‘Don’t Know’ in January, have now transferred their support to the No campaign. One has to therefore commend the No to AV campaign, which the ComRes poll suggests is working. A recent BBC Question Time provided evidence for this supposition. After the issue of AV was raised in the debate, the majority of input from the panel members was met with lukewarm applause, most probably from those who were committed supporters one way or the other on the issue. That was until a panelist mentioned suggested that millions of pounds would be wasted on AV; then, it seemed, the whole audience were applauding.

The No to AV campaign seem to have realised the fact that the majority of people are not greatly interested in the detailed arguments for and against different systems of voting. For most, it is an extremely dry topic. With this understanding, they have therefore run a campaign which, yes, has been negative, but which has landed its core messages with the average voter. Indeed, No to AV have also found success with the simple fact, they say, that the winner can sometimes end up not being elected. I would argue, even as someone who will vote No on May 5th, that if a candidate receives a slim margin of votes, that this does not necessarily mean that they are the most popular candidate in general terms. However, to the majority of people who only look briefly at both sides of the argument, it is ludicrous to them that the person who comes first may not always win the contest. The No to AV campaign have capitalised on this, as indicated by the support the campaign has received from a group of famous sportspeople; in other words, people who are somewhat beacons for the ‘first past the post’ idea. The most recent video released by the Conservative No to AV group for example, called ‘AV Sports Day’, is however, in truth, pathetic – there is a clear difference between the contest of a running race and of an election, but the message nonetheless has been successful.

Neither the cost, nor the fact that the candidate with the most votes may lose are the reasons why I do not support the change to the Alternative Vote. I am more concerned by the fact that it undermines the principle of one person, one vote by allowing supporters of outsider parties to have their second preferences counted first. I am also concerned that AV would make coalitions more likely, which will create less decisive government, and will make it far easier for politicians to break their manifesto pledges. However, it has to be said that the No to AV campaign has been successful at transferring the balance of public opinion at least to neck and neck, if not slightly in favour of a No vote. Neither side of the argument can afford can be complacent in the run up to May 5th, but it really does seem that all is to play for and that any result is still on the cards.