Alternative Vote should be adopted in the UK (over First Past the Post).

Thanks to Pro for posting such an impressive round - I've learned a lot already! I will address the points raised in the same manner. 1: AV is complicated. Pro argues that the Alternative vote is not at all complicated and all people need to do is understand that they are ranking candidates in order of preference. He brings up the analogy of a child ranking chocolate bars in order of preference. However, ironically, this analogy represents is a highly simplified version of the concept of AV but not actual AV. A more accurate analogy would be: 1. A classroom of children are asked to rank chocolate bars in order of preference; 1 for their first preference, 2 for their next and so on. (they may not be familiar with all the chocolate bars so choose the bars randomly after the first or second one) 2. The votes are counted. 3. If one chocolate bar does not receive over 50% of the vote, the chocolate bar with the least number of votes is eliminated and its voter's second preferences (only theirs!) are counted and redistributed amongst the other chocolate bars. 4. If still no chocolate bar has reached over 50%, the chocolate bar with the next fewest votes is eliminated and it's voters highest preference chocolate bar still remaining is added to the pile, and so on in that fashion. 5. This process is repeated until a candidate has over 50%. As opposed to First Pass the Post which is: 1. The children vote for their favourite chocolate bar. 2. Their votes are counted. 3. The chocolate bar with the highest number of votes wins. I don't think it's possible to say with a straight face that people won't be turned off by the complicated system of AV. My opponent himself had to resort to a simplified analogy involving only three candidates to explain AV! Pro has not responded to the point that in Australia where AV is used voter turnouts are so low they have had to introduce compulsory voting. Perhaps he thinks it is coincidence that the only major nation to use AV at the federal level also has to force its people to vote. I concede that some multi-member constituencies use STV (almost the same as AV - it calculates the threshold needed to win in an election differently) - however, they are still a tiny minority and we are talking about a voting system used for national legislature in any case. 2: AV & proportionality The point about proportionality was in response to Pro's argument that FPTP allows parties into power with minority support. This is true - however, AV which would give more seats to the Liberal Democrats would make coalition governments more common and coalition governments are undemocratic and unfair for a number of reasons: 1. A party with minority support much smaller than that of a government elected under FPTP can have a disproportionate amount of power under a coalition government - as pointed out, only 1 in 5 voters voted for the liberal democrats yet they are the lesser half of the government in charge of the country! 2. The ability to select a prime minister actually switches from the British people to the third most popular party (the Liberal Democrats) under a coalition government because they choose who gets into power by forming a coalition. 3. Party accountability is decreased because they can go back on their campaign promises to broker an agreement for a coalition government. Frankly, many people in this country don't trust their politicians; should we really give them an excuse to ignore their pledges like the Liberal Democrats have done with student fees? Pro brings up the point that a coalition government just formed under FPTP - this is true, but coalition governments are the exception under FPTP and would become more common under AV because it would weaken the two main parties and strengthen the third. For these reasons, AV actually gives more power to a minority party than FPTP and should be rejected on that basis, not accepted. At least FPTP gives power to the largest minority; AV gives disproportionate power to a minor minority party. Pro's source is misleading. From the text: “Previous discussion had shown that different voting rules might be advisable under different circumstances, so that a more concrete problem than “What is the best voting rule” should be tackled. The precise question for the vote was: What is the best voting rule for your town to use to elect the mayor?” So in other words, the experts had already explained that different electoral systems are suitable for different types of governance, then said that they think in mayoral elections AV is suitable (though more preferred Approval voting with 15 to AV's 10). Even if we were to accept this appeal to authority from a small number of experts, it does not support AV in national elections. 3: Changing to AV would be costly I concede the point - I should check my sources more carefully! (though, I'm not sure why my Pro thinks it is lie from the No Campaign rather than a mistake - can he prove it?) Nonetheless, this point still serves as a tiebreaker. If neither system is to be preferred over the other, there is no point spending £26 million on the change. 4: AV is unfair Even if the number of people who go on to win despite being second or third in the initial count is as small as 5% (though that wouldn't necessarily be the case), that would still be unfair because they are winning using the secondary preferences of the voters of only one candidate (the least popular one). Not everyone's second preferences are counted - as Winston Churchill once said "The decision is to be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates". [1] The 50% figure for AV is also misleading - this does not mean over 50% of people voted for a particular candidate, but that over 50% of preferences which are unfairly skewed to some people - preferences not necessarily considered since they are less than the first preference - favour a particular party. In addition, as previously noted AV leads to more coalition governments which are unfair and undemocratic. Question Answers: 1a. First Pass the Post is imperfect. However, it generally produces decisive single party governments - even if those governments are minority. AV on the other hand produces more coalition governments which are even worse for minority rule since they give kingmaker status to a party supported by even less people. If it is undemocratic, AV is worse. 2a. £26 million would probably be fine. However, this assumes AV will improve the quality of democracy - which is the whole point of the debate and cannot be assumed. 3a. I don't know how to answer this without knowing what Pro means by 'successful' - They might work in the sense that they provide adequate governance, but they are not successful in that no-one actually voted for a combination government - and for other reasons, coalition governments are unfair and reduce accountability. Questions for opponent: 1. Based on the drop in voter turnouts in Austrailia after AV was introduced (to the point where they had to introduce compulsory voting) isn't it reasonable to believe that voter turnouts would drop significantly in Britain also? 2. Isn't it hypocritical to argue that FPTP results in minority rule when AV would lead to more coalition governments that give parties with even less support 'kingmaker' status as well as disproportionate political influence? 3. You argue that AV will lead to politicians being forced to appeal to a broader section of society. However, won't this lead to supporters of extremist parties like the BNP being given legitimacy because politicians will have to appeal to such people's second preferences? [1] http://hfconservatives.typepad.com...