The alternative vote - missing a trick.

The Yes to AV campaign have missed a trick in the build-up to the referendum. I have seen various videos on TV, YouTube etc., and whilst they may have detailed how the vote works, they've missed a trick - they've included political bias. One such video that springs to mind is one involving dogs and cats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHuiDD_oTk&feature=related) - it's amusing, no doubt, or at least I think it's amusing. But it's clearly coming from a left-wing standpoint, i.e. the dogs are pretty clearly portrayed negatively as a surrogate image for Conservative party. I don't think that needs much explaining. On the other hand, the cats are generally speaking portrayed in a more considered and moderate light, and pretty obviously as a metaphor for left-wing parties such as Labour and Lib Dems. My conclusion? Big fail. AV is not about political affiliation and should never have been portrayed as such, even if it is in jest, because already there's a sense of alienation being purported. AV is about giving more people a say in who we pick to run our country.

However, this political bias isn't so evident in Dan Snow's promotional video for the Yes to No campaign, but they've still fallen into the trap of political party metaphor. In the example, they have the pub and coffee shops. Whilst there's not so much in the way of direct political allusion, the way their example pans out alludes to the result of the last election by the way it splits the vote, and doesn't do much to dissuade people from the illusion that AV would mean that 2nd place in a vote would win, i.e. it doesn't do enough to clear up the notion that the person with the most initial votes isn't the outright winner.

Whilst the example concludes with an eventual result that could certainly happen in an election carried out using AV, it should also have ended with an example where the option with the most initial votes, i.e. the coffee shop in Snow's video, ends up winning aswell under an Alternative Vote. In other words, those who voted for pubs who were eliminated at the first round of the count decided their 2nd preference was for the coffee shop rather than another pub, and thus the coffee shop has just as much chance of winning as the various pubs it was competing with based on what people voted, both 1st and 2nd preference.

Without that second example of how an AV election result can pan out, it gives an impression that you don't have to come first to win. This isn't the case, but bearing in mind many people watching the video are only familiar with First Past The Post will still have that in mind when interpreting a new system of voting, it's understandable that people might not quite get it because it only suggests one outcome.

The Alternative Vote does not mean that 2nd or 3rd place wins - it means whoever comes first wins. What is different from First Past The Post (FPTP) is that it means more votes actually count in deciding who actually comes first. It also means we (the voting public) will have to be more considered in who we vote for. You put down your first preference for who you want to win, and if you wish, you put no more preferences - that's entirely down to the voter, and such an option is still available. However, if you only put one preference for your vote, you have to be prepared for an outcome which means your vote counts for nothing if that party's overall amount of votes doesn't make the cut. Judging by the general feeling around the country in the wake of the last election, and the collective feeling that many people's votes, for parties across the political spectrum, meant nothing in the final outcome.

Tory voters who voted in seats won by Labour - your vote didn't count.

Labour voters who voted in seats won by the Lib Dems - your vote didn't count.

UKIP voters who voted in seats won by Labour - your vote didn't count.

Green voters who voted in seats won by [any party that wasn't your own] - your vote didn't count.

One can go on citing similar examples, but this is the point - under AV, more people's vote will count. Again, it should be emphasised, no one is obliged to list a preference list longer than one choice if you wish, but AV gives you the choice to actually have a greater say in who runs the country. If you actually want to have a vote that counts, you should vote Yes to AV in tomorrow's referendum.

As per http://www.regionaltopup.co.uk/2010/05/19/over-71-of-votes-wasted-in-2010-general-election/, 71% of the votes cast in the 2010 General Election were wasted. Bearing in mind how many people in the electorate didn't vote at all, that's an obscene figure. A parliament made up of MPs voted in by 8.5m people in a country who's total population of nearly 62m?

(per http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+of+uk, 2009)?

There is no way that can be considered a fair reflection of the popular vote.

If you read this and still prefer Fast Past The Post system, by all means, vote No - everyone is entitled to vote for what they wish and hold the opinions they hold, and people are entitled to agree or disagree accordingly. I'd simply rather people go into the vote with a better picture of what a system of Alternative Vote actually means, rather than the misinformation being given out by the No to AV campaign and the misguided attempts by the Yes to AV campaign.

It's not about party politics - it's about fair politics.