On the 5th of May, 2011 there will be a referendum on electoral reform (or, according to the government, there will be a ‘big vote on the way we choose our representatives’). Alongside the generally low levels of information and media coverage surrounding the referendum, there has been increasingly less accurate and little comparative information surrounding our options.
I have purposefully avoided mentioning and repeating arguments proposed by either the No2AV or the Yes to Fairer Votes Campaigns, largely because the information is both misleading (ie. “AV is unfair” without evidence) and inadequate (ie. “AV is fairer”, but how?).
Four Evaluative Criteria for AV and FPTP
When comparing electoral systems, an assessment of the criteria they satisfy allows for an evaluation of how good they are. There are four points of comparison which are important which will be looked at in our ‘Four Criteria’ PDF:
View PDF forthe Summary of the comparison of the Four Criteria
.
View the Institute for Public Policy Research’s website for the upcoming research regarding AV usage in the UK.
One Final Point
I am by no means a supporter of the Alternative Vote but I do see it as a preferable system to FPTP. I do not, however support action on the referendum largely because I feel that the issues are too complex, the data inconclusive and the fact that the Alternative Vote system is a product of LibDem compromise.
Despite this, I thoroughly applaud the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign for attempting to provide at least some factual information. This, I find hard to say about the No2AV campaign, propagating lies about the purported costs (circa £250million apparently) and unsubstantiated claims about the increased likelihood of hung parliaments. Also, I still can’t believe how effective valueless endorsements are, like the one below:
Quite frankly, and even if their arguments are valid, I see no reason to defer my decision-making capabilities to ‘cricket stars’ by taking their advice.