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

Since the arguments and counter-arguments have become somewhat disorganised, I will summarise the arguments used by both sides and come to a conclusion. Pro argued:1. First pass the post allows minority governments which are undemocratic.2. MPs don't need to appeal to a broad spectrum of people under FPTP.3. Too many votes are wasted under FPTP - and this causes apathy amongst voters. 4. AV produces candidates who better represent their constituents. Con argued:1. AV is significantly more complicated than FPTP which could translate to lower turnouts. 2. AV leads to more coalition governments - which are undemocratic, produce disproportionate political power and reduce accountability. 3. AV is costly. 4. AV allows secondary preferences of voters to determine results which is unfair. Note that Con would not have to prove the FPTP is superior to AV - the resolution was that Britain should change to AV and there is obviously no point doing so if AV is just as bad. (3. ) Was pretty much dropped when Pro pointed out there were no plans for new voting machines - although there is no point spending 26 million if AV is not shown to be better. I will respond, taking into account the previous rounds to each argument raised by Pro and argue my own. Response to Pro's arguments 1. Even if FPTP produces minority governments, they are still the minority governments with the most support of the people. It is not the fault of the voting system that the UK has three substantial main parties which split the votes, forcing a minority government. The alternative is AV which would produce more coalition governments (that I will elaborate on later). Saying single party governments under AV would have over 50% support is misleading, since some of the 'support' comes in the form of secondary preferences which are only taken from the voters who support minority parties while the secondary preferences of majority parties are usually ignored. 2. This is true, and I will concede a point partially in favour of AV. However, it still has the problem of possibly legitimising voters of extremist parties. It is also a speculative point not really based on any hard evidence. 3. It's true that votes are wasted under FPTP; but is AV any better? AV counts 'preferences' instead, but it does not count preferences equally - only people who vote for parties that are eliminated have their secondary preferences counted, so it is unequal - in other words, people who vote for extremist parties often have their preferences counted multiple times. 4. This assumes that a large amount of people will vote, which has been challenged on the basis of AV's complexity. In addition, this comes at the price of more coalition governments, which are even worse for representation for a number of reasons which will be elaborated on once again. Defense of my own arguments:1. Pro argued with an analogy using ice-cream to try and show that AV wasn't complicated, but I pointed out that that analogy doesn't fully capture the complexity of AV, and responded with my own analogy showing how simple FPTP is in comparison. I pointed out that Australia has had to introduce compulsory voting because of low turn outs and it is one of the few countries that uses AV at a national level; in addition, I pointed out that the drop in turn outs and compulsory voting were introduced the same time as AV. Pro argued that this was to do with the historical context and that AV had nothing to do with it - I find it at the very least highly suspicious that voter turnouts dropped at the same time, but readers of the debate will have to decide for themselves. 2. This is the meat of my argument - AV would increase the number of coalition governments by increasing the power of the Liberal Democrats and correspondingly decreasing the power of the two main parties. I gave three reasons why coalition governments are bad;a. Under a coalition government an even smaller minority government than that elected under FPTP - a minority government that not only isn't the largest minority, but is the third largest, is allowed to shape UK politics as part of the government. The Lib Dems have a hugely disproportionate amount of power compared to the number of votes they received. This at the very least counters the argument that under FPTP there is minority rule - the problem is even worse under AV. b. The power to elect a prime minister falls in the hands of the third party, rather than the people. Even if they are the 'natural' kingmakers, which seems like a fairly odd argument, surely the kingmaker should be the British people. c. Party accountability is decreased because parties can ignore their campaign promises in the interest of brokering a coalition deal. Pro has responded in various ways, but I don't think any of his criticisms succeed - he argued that coalition governments can happen under FPTP, but even so they are the exception and would be increased under AV. He argued that some countries get along fine with coalition governments, which doesn't really address the points - those governments have the problems I outlined. Pro points out that minority governments are not just kingmakers, but the actual governments themselves - but the point was that the governments that wield disproportionate power have less support than those governments. The governments are the largest minority, unlike a coalition government. I pointed out that no-one actually votes for a coalition government so countries that receive a coalition government don't get what anyone wants - I don't think Pro responded to this point. Pro also never really responded to point 3, that party accountability is decreased. I think these criticisms in themselves show AV to have serious problems - problems that render it as bad or worse than FPTP and therefore it is not worth the money converting. Finally, complexity. I probably didn't do a good job explaining myself here - tactical voting is still possible under AV, it's just more complicated because the system is more complicated. Take a hypothetical constituency [1] of 60,000 people in which Labour is supported by 25,000, conservatives by 20,000 and Lib Dems by 15,000. Conservative's and Labour's secondary preferences will probably favour Lib Dems, while Lib Dems will be split more evenly. If a Conservative candidate wants Labour to lose, it is in his favour to vote for the Lib Dems. Why? Because If the Conservatives come third, their secondary preferences will mostly default to the Lib Dems, pushing them ahead of Labour to win. Tactical voting is still possible under AV; it's just more complicated, which adds to the argument that AV's complexity could put people off, and ends the argument that under AV tactical voting would be eliminated because people would not have to vote tactically. I don't deny that FPTP has problems - significant problems, even. But I think AV makes many of those problems even worse and the benefits are negligible. AV is overly complicated, makes coalition governments more likely which are unfair, reduce accountability and are undemocratic. Thanks for the great debate! [1] . http://www.ipsos-mori.com... (page 10)