The AV Referendum - why I will be voting yes.

The legislation has finally made it through the House of Lords fillibusting and we will have a referendum on 5th May. Both the Yes and No campaigns are kicking off and, to be honest, they're both talking nonsense so far.

The No campaign seems to be centring around nonsensical posters about needing maternity units and bullet proof armour rather than a new voting system. This is nonsense not only because on May 5th voters won't be given the choice of AV or a new maternity unit, but its also nonsense because the figure they are quoting £250 million has actually been plucked out of thin air and it has no bearing to any costs that anybody who knows anything about things has come up with.

Other stupid arguments against AV - its too complicated - no actually I think most of the UK electorate can cope with ranking things in order of preference. Also, there have been arguments that AV is more likely to produce hung parliaments (if that is a bad thing) - there is little evidence of that, it is, after all, not a proportional system and in 1997 would have produced an even larger Labour majority. As to the idea advanced by some (not the actual No campaign, but some Labour supporters) that we should vote No to punish Nick Clegg - that's just ridiculous. One way or another Clegg will be gone in a few elections, we may have the electoral system we vote for for some time.

That said, the Yes camp are hardly doing much better:
AV is fairer votes - not necessarily - see above about 1997 - it is not a proportional system and can disproportionately exaggerate big swings.
It will ensure that MPs are elected with 50% of the vote  - no it won't as it won't be compulsory to rank all candidates (it is in Australia, I think) so some (in some cases many votes) will not transfer, meaning that candidates can still get elected with less than 50% of the vote.
Every vote will count/it will do away with safe seats - not true and not true. Strictly every vote counts under First Past the Post (or alternatively only votes for the winning candidate count) - I don't understand what difference AV will make). As to safe seats, in most safe seats the winning candidate (the monkey in the blue/red rosette) will get over 50% on first preferences anyway, so AV will make no difference.

However, I will be voting Yes on 5th May for two main reasons:

1. A No vote probably spells the end to electoral reform for another generation - that would be a shame. Personally I would have preferred that they had started with reforming the House of Lords (an elected house using STV) but lets not give up now.
2. The preferential system of voting actually suits the way I approach things - I'm not rabidly pro-any party to the extent that I would say them and nobody else. I am probably more along the lines of being 70% in favour of one party, 60% in agreement with another. AV allows me to express this better - to say I want him, but if not him then her. For example, at the last election my preference would have been Green, with a second preference for Lib-Dem. I ended up voting Lib-Dem as I felt that under FPTP a Green vote would have no impact. Under AV I have more room to express a more nuanced opinion.

Of course, AV is not totally new to the UK. Scottish local councils are elected using STV, but when there is a by-election for just one seat, STV becomes by default an AV system. The results can be quite interesting - for one thing, the transfers do tend to go all over the place and not just in the directions you might expect. There have been 4 Scottish local by-elections since the last general election. 2 were safe Labour holds, although interestingly they failed to get over 50% despite polling over 40% on first preferences. The other two should have been SNP wins, but the transfers saw independant candidates take the seats despite trailing on 1st preferences. Its a different kind of democracy, but not necessarily a worse one.