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

Hi and thanks for taking part in the debate. I shall now deal with each of the points you raised. 1: AV is complicated. You first raised the argument that the Alternative Vote system is complicated, and that people would be less likely to vote with a complicated system. If you have a child, and you ask that child 'which chocolate bar would you like', the child might answer something like 'mmm I'll have a snickers but if they don't have a snickers I'll have a galaxy'. That child just understood the basic concept of Alternative Vote: preferences. It is not at all complicated. You also raised the point that AV is only used in 3 countries worldwide. What is often overlooked is that STV (single transferable vote) is a system that is exactly the same as Alternative Vote, but used in multi member constituencies. This system is used in a large number of countries worldwide, including some member states of the European Union. NO other European Union member state uses First Past the Post. 2: AV is not as proportionate as you think. Alternative Vote does not claim to be a proportional voting system. But neither is First Past the Post, so in trying to establish which of these two voting systems is better - there is no point entertaining any ideas of proportionality. Secondly, you raise the fear of endless coalition governments and put forward the idea that the 3rd party - the Liberal Democrats would always have the power to choose governments. This is actually what has just happened under First Past the Post. In truth, this fear of coalitions is unfounded and irrational. Many of our European neighbours 'endure' coalitions through most governments, and it becomes the political way. There is nothing to be afraid of. Examples of countries where successful coalitions dominate include much of Scandinavia (take a look at Norway, Finland etc) While you raise the issue of the results made by Alternative Vote as being 'undemocratic' you fail to defend First Past the Post itself as being 'democratic'. I would argue that if we had a democracy scale in front of us, Alternative Vote would far be considered 'more democratic' than First Past the Post. The fact of the matter is, that First Past the Post leads to minority rule. As I stated in my first posted argument, only on government in the last 100 years (in 1931) enjoyed an actual 'majority' ie. more than 50% of the vote. It is surely impossible to defend minority rule as being 'democratic' in nature. If we are comparing First Past the Post and Alternative Vote on a democratic level, I refer you to this study carried out recently at the London School of Economics: http://www2.lse.ac.uk... Here, 22 voting theory experts from around the world compared voting systems to see which one was most fitting for UK democracy. Every single one of them rejected First Past the Post. 10 of them chose the Alternative Vote. (the other 12 chose Approval Voting, but we are not debating that here). 3. Changing to AV would be costly. This is a lie (though it is not your lie). Firstly, you have included in your argument the sum of £91 million for the cost of the referendum. This figure is completely irrelevant seeming as this money has now been spent whether or not we implement AV. You go on to quote a figure of £130 million to be spent on electronic counting machines to be used with the new system. This is false. Electronic counting machines are unnecessary, and the Electoral Commission has already stated that they would be unnecessary. In Australia (where they use AV) they continue to count by hand, and do not use electronic counting at all. That cuts the cost from £250 million to £26 million, to be spent on informing the public on how Alternative Voting works. This is an absolutely minuscule figure in the grand scheme of things, especially when you consider that it is to enhance the quality of our democracy. Who can put a price tag on democracy? 4. AV is unfair. You use an example how someone who finishes first in the original count - ie, someone who wins under First Past the Post, can go on to lose to someone originally placed 3rd or 4th. Again, in Australia, where they use the system, only in less than 5% of cases do those who are placed 1st after the first round of counting, do those candidates fail to go on to win. First Past the Post is the system that is unfair. Here is (fake) example: ROUND ONE (FIRST PAST THE POST RESULTS ROUND) Conservatives: 35% Labour: 33% Liberal Democrats: 24% Green Party - 8% Ideologically, 65% of the voters above voted for a party either considered Liberal or Progressive. The majority (though not all, I concede) of these voters would be more likely to want a Progressive, or Liberal candidate & government, than a Conservative, right-wing one. Under AV, with the Greens eliminated a second round of voting might look like this: ROUND TWO Conservatives 36% Labour 37% Liberal Democrats 27% Still no winner, as no candidate has achieved 50% of the voter. Liberal Democrats are now eliminated and their votes redistributed. ROUND THREE Conservatives 43% Labour 57% ++++LABOUR WIN++++ Not only do we now have a winner, but we have a winner that over 50% of the electorate have specified a preference for. Over 50%of the population said they would prefer Labour to the Conservatives, and that's what we have. This is MAJORITY RULE. This is fair, and democratic. The only way it could be improved is if it was a proportional system. But neither is First Past the Post, so FPTP cannot criticise AV in this respect. First Past the Post would have simply produced a winner who only managed to achieve 35% of the popular vote, and 43% preferential overall. This candidate did not have broad appeal. Under First Past the Post he/she (not to be sexist) could potentially have contually been re-elected by a minority, despite a majority preferring someone else. I ask my debate partner the following: How can First Past the Post be defended as being democratic when it has been shown to produce minority rule 99% of the time. What price would be acceptable to pay for improving the quality of democracy in the country? What he fears from a coalition government, when they work so successfully in many other developed countries?