The TotalPolitics blog has an interview this week with Jo Swinson MP, in which she gets down to some mythbusting about the referendum on the voting system for the UK Parliament. Here’s an excerpt:
The only voting machines that I’ve been aware of were for counting the local council elections. I mean you just don’t need voting machines for AV. Have they [No to AV] ever managed to answer that question as to why they think it would? I’ll give you an example right, in my constituency, in the last two years we’ve had two by-elections in the council. Now when you have STV, it’s STV because you have a multi-member ward. When you have a by-election therefore you count with AV because AV is basically STV but for a single-member ward. We had both those by-elections and they were counted in the exact same way, by hand, as every other election has been counted.
Find out Jo’s answers on other points, including spoilt ballot papers, the Electoral Reform Society, the BNP and why she’s campaigning for Yes to Fairer Votes at the TotalPolitics website.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Find Halloween and seasonal gifts in my Etsy shop today.
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Sue Gray: Beware of beat-sweeteners and source-greasers
Is Kemi Badenoch still in the lead? - The Week in Polls
Belljar
England urged to bring in minimum unit price on alcohol as deaths rise 10% a year
David Warren
David Allen
Steve Trevethan
John Waller
Vince Thompson
17 Comments
Although I’m opposed to AV any fair-minded person must agree that the No campaign have been more economical with the truth than the Yes campaign, and the lie (and it is a lie, not a myth) about the cost of AV is the worst example.
It’s the technique often used in US politics where a smear, even if withdrawn subsequently, sticks in the public mind. If the Yes campaign wants to succeed they should nail this lie hard and use it to cast doubt on the No campaign.
I guess the time will come when we’ll all vote electronically, either from home or from somewhere like the public library (assuming we still have public libraries) Those of us whose polling station is a school could use the computer suite. The old American idea of voting machines will be consigned to history.
I am also a No voter but am really disgusted at the smears and lies coming from the No2Av campaign and am now seriously considering abstaining.
I guess we should have known what to expect when Matthew Elliott moved over from the Taxpayers Alliance to head the No campaign. The only point I would make (in sorrow rather than anger) is that Osborne, Warsi and co are the very people you are keeping in government – in my opinion the Tories have never changed from being the “nasty” party they just have a competently smooth salesman in Cameron
Can Jo Swinson really be unaware of the fact that counting machines are used for London mayoral elections?
This is yet another illustration of the abysmal level of debate on both sides. Of course the “No” campaign shouldn’t be claiming that counting machines will definitely be used, still less plucking costings out of thin air in “Tory VAT bombshell” style.
But equally the “Yes” campaign shouldn’t be feigning ignorance of the fact that counting machines are already in use in the UK for elections conducted using a similar – but simpler – system. And they shouldn’t be giving people the impression that counting machines definitely won’t be used. As the interviewer points out to Swinson, that decision hasn’t been taken yet.
Am pleased to say that i returned my postal vote today, and voted NO to AV and urge others to do the same.
AV would deliver more hung parliaments
Allow Nick Clegg to be King maker
and
Makes government less accountable as they use the excuse, we didnt get a majority, were in a coalition, e.t.c e.t.c
Interesting that the No campaign still refuses to release their donor lists – what is it they are hiding?
http://livingonwords.blogspot.com/2011/04/are-bnp-one-of-no-to-av-donors.html
I believe that if you are a true believer of PR, you should vote NO to AV. If people are voting YES to AV because they see it as a stepping stone towards PR, they are in for a big surprise. You can not change the voting system so soon after changing it. Imagine AV goes through, and we get a hung Parl in 2015. The Lib Dems then get a referendum on changing the electoral system to STV. How would the Yes to STV campaign be like? “Oh this is better than AV – AV is bad because of x, y, z” when just a few years ago they were lauding AV. The NO to STV campaign can at least justify themselves by arguing that they do not like AV, but compared to STV it is a better system, whilst the Yes to STV campaign will have to explain the strengths and hence the weaknesses of AV, and then they would have to ask why they didn’t admit to such disadavantages in the 2011 referendum. Moreover, it is obvious that this referendum will have low turnout particularly in English areas with no local elections, and there would be much disenchantment that we are having another referendum on abandoning another electoral system which we had just a few years earlier decided to adopt. If we vote NO to AV, we can say that we don’t want to replace one non-proportional electoral system, with another, and we can then demand a proper debate on PR.
So I urge all those who want PR to vote NO to AV!
Agree with Jo on this one but why on earth were these sort of arguments not put forward in the election broadcast – instead we had the silly people with loudspeakers which made me cringe. Most of the good arguments for AV have been made on this site – meanwhile the professionals seem almost half hearted in their approach as if they are not quite sure of the argument themselves.
Meanwhile the postal votes are dropping through the letterboxes….
I agree with Jo that voting machines and mechanised counting are a quite separate issue, as various elections in Scotland, and both parts of Ireland, testify.
I also will be voting Yes to AV, because I am on the side of the individual citizen (whether I agree with him/her or not) using the vote to express fully the citizen’s own preference for parties and still use their single vote wholly whatever other citizens do. This is opposed by the Big Party Apparachiks, who want to dragoon the individual into voting for them on the ground that someone else he/she dreads might win. Then the Apparachiks are happy to claim the reluctant supporters’ votes as real support, even if this is far from the truth.
I think all predictions about the effect of one-party versus coalition government are highly speculative. Many “one-party” governments in my longish lifetime, were, in fact coalitions, because there are divergences of views inside the three big parties and also, in some cases, because a number of government MPs were, in effect, sponsored by two parties.
I think the most likely effect is that, once the public get to know the system, the number of first preferences cast for the biggest parties to go down, and to make the us all AND MPs elected more aware of the “coalition of voters” that always elects an MP, and a bit more humble – a Good Thing.
Apart from the lowering of the voting age to 18, the last time our Westminster electoral system was greatly changed was for the 1950 election (abolition of university graduate second votes and the remaining constituencies which elected more than one MP). Time to move on again.
@matt – if those are the three reasons why you voted no, then I’m afraid you’ve wasted your vote.
1 – no it wouldn’t. Most expert opinion is that it would have resulted in about 3 hung parliaments since the 1960s – which is only about 1 more than we actually had. In fact, in 1997 it would have increased Tony Blair’s majority, made the Lib Dems the official Opposition, and reduced the Tories to around 70 MPs – which would have been a huge political step-change. It also doesn’t account for the fact that the 1992 Parliament was technically hung from around 1995 onwards.
2 – no it wouldn’t – see no.1. If there are no more hung parliaments, then there’s no likelihood of Nick Clegg (or, for that matter, Paddy Ashdown, Charles Kennedy or Ming Campbell) being “kingmaker.”
3 – it would make MPs more accountable – and consequently Government too – because it would be easier to remove them if an MP was reliant on second preferences. In any case, parties never implement everything which is in the manifesto anyway if they become inconvenient (this referendum being an example, promised by Labour in 1997, 2001 and 2005 but never delivered) or if circumstances change.
Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news, @matt, but I’m sure your other Labour votes will count for something….
@chigsee
This referendum will be taken as settling the matter of whether Britain wants electoral reform away from FPTP or not. A Yes vote will permit further reform in the next ten or fifteen years – there will be a bedding down period as you say, but the signal will be clear that the British people are open to reform. A No vote will put the issue off the political agenda for twenty, thirty or more years.
In any case, you won’t get a Yes to STV campaign until the Lib Dems are next in government. And to be honest, whatever the objective merits of STV, I doubt that it will be STV. You need to get other parties on board, Greens, UKIP, SNP, PC, SDLP, APNI, etc. They mostly support AMS or AV+, so that’s probably what you will need to rally around.
Anyway, just let me shrug my shoulders. Electoral Reform is probably not going to happen for decades. The vote will go ‘No’, and the reform realists voting ‘Yes’ and the reform dreamers voting ‘No’ are all going to regret this for a very long time. The ‘dreamers’ have not helped, but they will not have cost many votes to the reform camp, as in the real world, anyone who wants reform will vote ‘Yes’. Hairsplitters may infest internet boards, but they are thin on the ground in real life.
@Paul McKeown
Its this sort of argument that has me firmly in the NO camp – please pretty please vote yes or else the proper electoral reform won’t happen for twenty, thirty years….
well I’m sorry – that’s nothing like a reason for voting yes – if I want to argue for something then I have to argue for it – I’m not in favour of changing a pretty lousy system for another lousy one just to make it easier for that change to happen quicker.
@KL
I have not wasted my vote at all thank you very much.
We live in a democracy where every individual is entitled to use their vote in they way in which they see fit.
I have set out my beliefs on why I think AV is no better than FPTP, it is my opinion and one of which i am entitled too and one of which i am entitled to encourage others to consider.
Just because someone does not support your cause or opinion, does not make it a wasted vote 😉
Whilst it’s true that machines aren’t necessary for an AV count, it definitely makes things quicker.
Think of the length of time it takes to count votes in some constituencies on a general election night. Now think what it would be like with more rounds added on. Machines make the process more efficient, providing the right ones (and relevant software) are purchased.
@David: Verifiability is much more important than speed of count. And electronically counted secret ballots are not verifiable, simple as that. The requirement for secrecy prevents the ballot from being verifiable. Manual counts of paper votes are possible, and are quick enough, even under AV and STV (as has been demonstrated by the experience of the past ~100 years in Australia and Ireland). They are also verifiable because they can be watched. Anyway this is a separate issue from whether to use AV: the No campaign is claiming that AV needs electronic counting, which is an obvious lie.
@peebee
It’s not an argument, simply a mournful shrugging of shoulders. It seems now unlikely that there will be any meaningful electoral reform in my lifetime. If you feel that voting down this referendum will bring electoral reform nearer, go ahead. You’re wrong, but that’s your choice.
@peebee
Oh and I disagree totally that AV is “lousy”. It’s a lot better than FPTP in the choice that if offers the elector, it’s a lot better in terms of electoral transparency (you can really see what people voted for by their preferences, rather than guessing through outcomes), it’s a huge help for fourth parties such as the Greens or UKIP as they should loose far fewer deposits and it’s generally somewhat better than FPTP in proportionality of outcome.
Obviously, it’s a lot worse in terms of proportionality than STV, AMS, AV+, whatever, but they are not on offer, nor will they ever be, unless the Lib Dems (or fourth parties) get at least a million and a half more votes in a general election than they did last time around.
“You just don’t need voting machines for AV”
No, you don’t ‘need’ them, but even if we did the price of getting a better electoral system is one that is worth paying.
However, in my opinion, AV is in fact a worse system than FPTP, so I will be voting “no”.