Further claims by the anti-reform No2AV campaign about the Alternative Vote have been exposed today, reports Shamik Das.
Further claims by the anti-reform No2AV campaign about the Alternative Vote have been exposed today. Readers will recall our article on February 5th setting straight a number of ‘facts’ put out by the no campaign about Australia’s experience – to which can be added their ‘facts’ about cost, voting machines and voter education in the UK.
Here are those latest No2AV ‘facts’ and the actual facts.
No2AV claim: “The cost of electronic vote counting necessitated by AV will be £130 million.”
Truth: There will be no electronic counting machines used with AV; as Australia’s foremost election authority Antony Green says:
“We’ve used AV for 90 years at all levels of government. And Australia has never used voting machines to conduct its elections.”
Furthermore, counting machines, such as the ones that plagued the Florida Count in the 2000 presidential election, are routinely used in America – for First Past the Post elections.
No2AV claim: “The simple fact is our country can’t afford AV.”
Truth: The cost of the referendum is incurred whether there is a Yes or a No vote, so there is no saving from voting No in the referendum. And, as Sunder Katwala on Next Left says:
“If Britain can’t afford democratic reform, how could Egypt or Zimbabwe? The GDP of the United Kingdom is $2.189 trillion or $35,100 per capita. The GDP of Egypt is $500 billion, or $6200 per capita (136th in the world).
“How ex-President Mubarak must now regret that he did not have Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers Alliance advising him to make a ‘we can’t afford free and fair elections’ speech to the protestors in Tahrir Square. Elliott’s argument about the costs of democratic reform would surely work much better in the Egyptian case than Britain.
“It should certainly be seized on by Robert Mugabe next time the Movement for Democratic Change, and our Foreign Secretary William Hague, are pressing the case for fair elections in Zimbabwe… There are arguments for and against this change. In a democracy, whether Britain could afford to count the votes really isn’t one of them.”
No2AV claim: “The cost of voter education with AV will be £26 million.”
Truth: This is a wild exaggeration, and based on the cost of the adoption of a different system, the Single Transferable Vote for Scottish Council elections, that is much more complex than AV.
Australia’s election expert Antony Green adds of the No2AV campaign:
“They need to get their facts right about Australia and AV. The point is you get better representation. That’s what AV is all about.
Green has also written a blog post today titled:
“Does the Alternative Vote Bring Tyranny to Australia?”
In spite of what the antis may tell you, that one can go in the pile marked:
“Questions to Which the Answer is No.”
44 Responses to “More No2AV claims fall flat”
Ben Rathe
RT @Jessica_Asato: Why No2AV claims about cost of AV are both wrong and undemocratic. From @leftfootfwd http://bit.ly/hcxQWt #labouryes …
salardeen
RT @VoteNoToAV: A rebuttal from @leftfootfwd and next left which equates members of #NO2AV with President Mubarak http://bit.ly/hcxQWt
Jessica Asato
@DPJHodges @epictrader Dan, you know that's not true. Can I refer you to: http://bit.ly/fosOoq & http://bit.ly/hcxQWt
nick beall
RT @leftfootfwd: More No2AV claims fall flat http://bit.ly/hPHLWH <- interesting! although still waiting to be persuaded.
John Slinger
How is AV more democratic or fairer if it means that the 2nd, 3rd etc preferences of those whose first preference vote LOST in the first round are then thrown into the pile? This means that in a seat where the BNP are standing and come last in the first round where the votes cast split fairly evenly, there will be much weight afforded to their supporters’ preferences. To take a non-BNP example, candidates are going to be required to tailor their messages such that they attract such 2nd, 3rd etc preferences. So people will be voted (allegedly) with the support of more than 50% of voters, but this statement must be qualified by saying ‘elected by 50% of a variety of votes case – some 1st preference, some 2nd, some 3rd and so-on. Still not an out and out winner in the first round – i.e. didn’t win 50% or more of first preferences and needed the 2nd, 3rd and 4th etc preferences of the candidates which lost the initial rounds in order to ‘win’ the election.
I favour full PR, along the lines of the German federal system. They have a mixed member proportional system with the first vote being a straight FPTP vote for a constituency representative, and the second vote being pure proportional representation. The second votes elect members which reflect the proportion of 2nd votes cast. That seems a good compromise – ie it keeps the constituency link but also adds in true proportionality. People who complain about the dangers of party hacks getting seats on a list system such as this need just look at the composition of the present House of Commons and indeed front bench of most major parties – these people would be there whatever the system!