If you haven’t joined the NO to AV campaign then I suggest that you sign up here now
With only 94 days to go until the country votes we have to go out, campaign and spread the message NO to AV!!
Why we are encouraging others to vote no:
AV makes elections unfairAV breaks the principle of one person one vote, because supporters of fringe parties end up having their vote counted several times while supporters of mainstream parties only have their vote counted once. Under AV the candidate that comes in third place can end up winning. People have a right to know where their vote goes. Voters themselves should decide who the best candidate is, not the voting system.
AV is a politician's fixAV is a politician's fix, taking power away from voters and allowing the Liberal Democrats to choose the government after each election. The only vote that really counts under AV is Nick Clegg's. Our current tried and tested voting system delivers clear outcomes and everyone's vote is equal. One person, one vote is the fairest way to elect an MP and the most democratic way to choose a government.
AV is complicated and expensiveOnly three countries use the complicated system - Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea - and Australia has compulsory voting to make sure people turn up. AV would also be expensive, requiring councils to spend more time and money on vote counting, which would increase your council tax. AV is a big change, so you need to make sure that you have read the small print before voting on 5 May.
For more information on the campaign and to sign up click here
AV makes elections unfair?
ReplyDeleteNo - it accepts that things aren't black and white. People have shades of opinion. In AV all people's votes are equal - but what varies is whether your shades of preference are taken into account. If you can't have your first choice, what would you prefer out of the remaining ones. That's a perfectly fair question (or do you always walk out of a restaurant when they don't have your first choice?)
AV is a politician's fix?
No, it's a means to get people more connected to their representatives. But a real politician's fix is to leave things as they are so that the Government of the day need do nothing to respond to the electorate. Leave it the way it is and governments are formed that represent best those voters who happen to live in high concentrations of similar people - and a minute % of floating voters decide whether the Government is red or blue.
AV is complicated and expensive?
Not complicated - are you saying that the poor voters won't understand it? In fact the First Past the Post system is so simple, many people know even before the poll that their vote won't count.
Expensive? Do you mean too expensive to give people more say or to encourage them to vota at all? And I understand Croydon spend about £2m on electoral services - out of total expenditure of £300m...how much will it increase? And why would we use it or similar schemes in European elections?
Of course you could make it all cheaper, simpler and easy to understand by having no elections whatsoever.