Fiona Melville

5th May 2011

Momentous news… Well, not really, but I’ve just voted No to AV. I wanted to vote yes, I really did.

In December, when I met the Yes campaign, I was keen to find a killer argument for AV.

In January, when I met the No campaign, I was eager to hear their killer rebuttal and why we should keep first past the post.

We do have problems with how our democracy works. I spent two years working on pro-democracy campaigns abroad, which really made me think about how ours operates. I think we have a body politic that generally isn’t very accountable, that fails to really explain what it’s doing (and be honest about why and how and what that is – the positives and the negatives), that only pays attention to voters when it’s election time, and that fails to take into account the changes in politics, awareness and issues since the 1950s.

They can start to be addressed by proper recalls, proper open primaries, full reselection processes for all MPs every election, more localism, more transparency and frequent, proper boundary reviews.

They cannot be fixed by AV. Proper proportional representation might go some way to addressing some of them.

The Yes campaign told me MPs are lazy and venal. Given that I know a fair few MPs, I know that this is simply untrue. They work hard, they do a lot of incredibly dull and unnoticed work, and they really do have a desire to serve their constituents – even every single minister I’ve ever met has said that the thing they most enjoy is helping their constituents with their problems. They also told me that AV would remove the concept of a safe seat – which is just nonsense; we ourselves vote to make seats safe.

The No campaign told me that a different voting system was expensive and unfair. I disagree profoundly with both statements – if we value our democracy we should be prepared to spend enough money to make it work properly, and I can’t see what’s unfair about allowing people to express preferences; your first preference is counted in every round that your candidate is still in the voting.

The Yes campaign’s arguments are not arguments for AV – they are arguments for recalls, open primaries, full reselection for all seats every time – and no tactical voting. And their refusal to accept a turnout threshold completely blew out of the water any pretence they made of wanting majoritarian support for anything.

While I accept that they were running a negative campaign, by definition, the No campaign’s arguments were not arguments for FPTP until very late in the campaign – their change to one person, one vote was the best thing they did and they should have done it earlier.

I was seriously contemplating not voting today. I don’t care very much which system we have out of AV and FPTP – I don’t think it would make a huge difference. But I think if AV passes, and is shown to not make the sweeping changes the Yes campaign has been promising, that will disengage voters even further.

I voted no because the Yes campaign failed to persuade me.  The No campaign hasn’t persuaded me either (though they are the only people who’ve sent or offered me any campaign literature).

I voted no with reluctance. I want change. I just don’t think this one would make any difference.