First off, Alternative Vote. Voters will get a single vote and instead of scribing a cross in the candidate of your choice, you number your candidates in preference. AV is a majority system which the winner must achieve 50% + 1 vote to win. If a candidate has the highest of the 1st preference votes but doesn’t achieve a majority, 2nd preferences are added on, then 3rd preferences and so on until one candidate is the winner and he/she goes on to represent the constituency in Parliament. How do the pair compare? Let’s see.
Representation
First Past the Post isn’t a fair representational electoral system when used for an election with multiple candidates. This is because the winning candidate of a constituency could achieve 35% of the electorate’s votes and represent the constituency, but what about the remaining 65% of voters who didn’t vote for that candidate? Is this representational of a constituency where only a minority of the voters want the candidate to represent the area? AV does help resolve this problem by being a majority electoral system but a candidate can win on 2nd preferences.
Mandate
Links with representation here. A winning candidate can win with 37% of the electorate’s vote, but it isn’t so much a strong mandate when only a minority support the candidate. Only a third of elected MPs currently in Parliament won 50% of the votes, not so much a strong mandate there, eh? Since a winner under AV requires a majority of the votes to win, the MP has a greater mandate to go on and represent his/her constituency in Parliament. AV can flush out some of the “weaker” MPs.
Easy to understand?
FPTP is easy to understand; winner is candidate with most votes. AV however can seem complicated, but really isn’t when it boils down to just ranking in preference your candidates. There are far more “confusing” electoral systems than AV. AMS and it’s D’Hondt system anyone?
Tactical voting
A major flaw of FPTP is tactical voting where voters vote against a candidate and vote for the 2nd likeliest winning candidate to attempt to block the candidate from winning the seat. Under AV, it can be partly resolved where you could for example wish for the Tory candidate to not get the seat, so you could vote the Labour candidate as your 1st preference and the Conservative candidate last.
Equal votes
Under FPTP, if a voter doesn’t vote for the winning candidate, his/her vote is wasted. Under AV, the ability to rank in preference your candidates means that you do have an equal vote to other vote and even if you didn’t vote for Labour, Conservatives or Liberal Democrats, your 4th or 5th preferences still can have a say.
Democratic?
First Past the Post favours a two party system between the Labour and Conservative parties and safe seats. Under AV, it's slightly more democratic, but note I said "slight". Under AV, Liberal Democrats would benefit from the system as they're the third biggest political party and seen as an alternative party to vote for, therefore a noted second preference. The claims made that AV would benefit BNP is wrong. It would be quite extreme for the party to win a seat on fifth and sixth preferences which the No to AV campaign is making out to be something that could very well happen. Plus the BNP are campaigning against AV, so why would it benefit a party that doesn't even want the system?
--
Personally, if I could vote, I would vote yes. Partly because I think it’s a better electoral system but then again, any other system is. I’m all for proportional representation since it’s right for modern UK Politics and First Past the Post is a system that’s failed to stand the test of time and serves no place in UK Politics since we have multiple political parties and it’s undemocratic to use a electoral system that favours a two party system.
If AV was to be used in UK General Elections, then it would be rather a stumble than a step forward. AV is a better system, but it’s not the desired system that we, the public want. That’s why we feel cheated. We finally get a referendum on electoral reform and we get a half arsed one since it’s a compromise. To think, if the Liberal Democrats hadn’t been so weak to the Conservatives and stood their ground, we would have a referendum on STV, what everyone really wants. This feels like a once in a lifetime opportunity to get rid of the ancient First Past the Post system and we’re being offered a weak alternative. Alternative vote.
