The Alternative Vote

A small change that will make a big difference

Next May voters will get the chance to choose a fairer voting system – the Alternative Vote.
It’s a small change that will make a big difference.

The new voting system will keep what is best about our current system – the link between
an MP serving their local constituency – but strengthens it by making MPs work harder to
get elected and giving voters more of a say.

With AV, MPs would now have to aim to get more than 50% of the vote, and so will
have to work harder and represent more of their constituents.

It cannot be right or fair that in the current system MPs can get elected on fewer than three
out of ten votes, with the vast majority of their constituents not having voted for them.

The expenses scandal showed how deeply out of touch some of our politicians became
from the people who elect them. It arose from a culture where MPs were not responsive to
their voters in the way they should be.

The Alternative Vote is a small, sensible change that will make a big difference.

At the last election, around two-thirds of MPs won their seats when a majority of their
constituents had voted against them. AV will change this.

With AV, MPs will have to reach out to secure over 50% of the vote in their constituencies,
rather than just 1 in 3 of their voters.

It preserves what is best about the current system – the constituency link and decisive
election results (hung parliaments are no more likely with AV than with FPTP) - but
strengthens it to give voters more of a say, and by ensuring MPs have to reach out across
a wider range of voters to get elected.

It will strengthen the current system, not replace it, by giving voters more of a say, and will
make MPs across the country work harder to get and keep their jobs.

A yes vote is a vote to say:

1. Yes to MPs having to work harder to be elected

MPs need to secure a real majority of voters to be sure of winning, not just the 1 in 3 who
can currently hand them power. They'll need to work harder to get - and keep - their jobs.

2. Yes to a bigger say on who your local MP is

Forget tactical voting - just pick the candidate you really want to win, and rank candidates
in order of your preference.

3. Yes to tackling the jobs for life culture at Westminster

Too many MPs have 'safe' seats for life won by securing only a minority of the vote. The
AV system will help change this by ensuring MPs have to reach out to secure over 50% of
the vote in their constituencies.
The Top 10 NO2AV attacks rebutted
The NO2AV campaign will say anything to stop giving voters more of a say, and defending
the old ‘jobs for life’ culture at Westminster.

They will say anything to defend a system that means:

- MPs can win seats with only 1 in 3 voters voting for them;
- MPs can have safe seats for life even though the majority of their constituents
haven’t voted for them;
- MPs don’t have to reach out to secure over 50% of the vote in their constituencies.

But the truth is that the AV system is a small change that will make a big difference –
making MPs work harder to get and stay elected, and giving you more of a say. No
wonder the old political establishment will say anything to stop it happening.

1. AV is too complicated
The AV system couldn’t be simpler. For voters, AV means just swapping the ‘X’ on your
ballot paper for a ‘1,2,3…’. People will be able to pick the person they really want but will
also have the chance to pick second and third choices if their first choice doesn’t win. And
if you only want to vote for one candidate, you can still do so. It’s a small change to our
voting system but one that will make a big difference because MPs will have to work
harder to get and keep their jobs, and you will have more of a say on who your local MP is.

2. AV helps extremist parties

This is a malicious untruth put around by some of those opposing AV. The truth is that AV
is the anti-extremist system. The BNP are opposed to AV for precisely this reason.

With AV, no-one can get elected unless most people back them. Therefore the risk of
extremist parties being elected by the back door is eliminated.

AV is the anti-extremist system because candidates have to secure a real majority to be

sure of winning. Because first past the post enables candidates to win with a very small
percentage of the vote, extremist parties such as the British National Party have more
chance of being elected under FPTP despite most people in an area opposing them.

3. AV means that some people get more than one vote

No. With AV everyone gets one vote. The difference is that AV gives you a vote that really
counts and more of a say on who your local MP is. If your first choice gets knocked out
your vote is transferred to your second preference. Whether you just vote 1 for your
favourite candidate or list a preference for every candidate on the ballot only one vote will
be counted. If you go to the chip shop, and order cod and chips but they are out of cod,
and you choose pie and chips instead, you still have only had one meal.

4. Churchill said AV allows elections “to be determined by the most worthless votes
given for the most worthless candidates”.
This is an outdated argument that dates back to a time in the 1950s when we lived in a two
party system and when First Past the Post arguably worked. But the British public has
changed since then. People now vote for a variety of parties, on a variety of issues and our
voting system needs to be upgraded to meet with where the public are.
That is why the AV system allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. It
means MPs across the country have to work harder and have to secure more than 50% of
the votes in the communities they seek to represent. It addresses the problem in the
current system when MPs can get elected on fewer than three out of ten votes.

5. AV will lead to more hung parliaments and more coalitions

Not true. Hung parliaments are no more likely with AV. And as the recent election
showed, First Past the Post has not given Britain any special immunity to hung
parliaments.

Australia has only had two hung parliaments using AV, compared to four in the UK over the
same period. Equally Canada which uses FPTP has had permanent hung parliaments
since 2004 despite holding 3 general elections in this period.

AV keeps the best features of the current system – members representing their local
communities and the likelihood of decisive results – but strengthens it by making MPs
work harder to get elected and giving voters more of say on who their local MP is.

6. AV doesn't allow voters to ‘kick the rascals out’

Tell that to voters living in safe seats where MPs have jobs for life even when a majority of
their voters have voted against them. Time and again these voters have to put up with
MPs guaranteed election on a fraction of the vote.

With AV, voters are better able to kick the rascals out because they have more of a say,
and because MPs can’t be sure of keeping their seats unless they have the backing of
over half of their constituents.

AV tackles the jobs for life culture and makes it easier for voters to unite against a very
unpopular candidate or party to throw them out of office.

7. Nick Clegg has called AV a ‘miserable little compromise’.

This is not a system designed to please politicians. It is a system designed to give voters
more of a say, and to ensure MPs work harder to get elected and stay elected.

There are some people who have previously supported more radical change to the
electoral system but that is not what is on offer. AV is not a radical change to the electoral
system. It is a small and sensible change to strengthen the current electoral system. It
preserves its strengths – the constituency link and decisive election results. But it
remedies the weakness that means people can get elected with less than 3 in ten voters
voting for them.

That is why the Yes campaign is supported by people who reject PR but support AV - as
well as people who previously supported PR – who all agree that our current electoral
system needs updating to give voters more of a say.

In this day and age, it cannot be right that MPs can be elected with fewer than three in ten
voters actually voting for their local MP. With MPs need to secure a real majority of voters
to be sure of winning, not just the minority who can currently hand them power. They will
need to work harder to get - and keep - their jobs.
8. The Jenkins Commission found it is disproportionate and “disturbingly
unpredictable”. It would have led to an even bigger majority for Labour in 1997.
AV has led to stable government in Australia over the past 80 years. AV is a system that is
more responsive to voters’ preferences. By making a small change and allowing people to
express preferences, people can vote for who they want.

You cannot predict what would have happened in 1997 using the AV system because so
many voters voted tactically in that election. With AV there is no more need for tactical
voting – you can pick the candidate you really want to win.

Under First Past the Post people often have to face the choice of having to abandon the
party they actually support, to prevent the party they least support getting in. AV
eliminates the need to vote tactically in this way because people can rank their candidates
in order of preference.

9. It is an obscure system that only three countries use. In Australia, 6 out of 10

voters want to return to the British system.
AV has provided stable government in Australia for the past 80 years and there are no
serious moves for Australia to change its electoral system to First Past the Post.

Also approximately 14 million people in the UK already have experience of using AV in

civic society elections. It is used by teachers, journalists, nurses and lawyers in their
internal elections as well as by organisations such as the Royal British Legion, the
Telegraph media group and News International.

AV is a natural, sensible and small change to strengthen our current electoral system, not
abandon it. It preserves its best features – the constituency link and decisive election
results – but updates it to give voters more of a say, and ensure MPs have to reach out to
over 50% of their local voters.

10. AV is a staging post to wider PR

Absolutely not. Proportional representation is not on offer. That is why the Yes campaign
is being supported by people who are opposed to PR, but support AV.

This is a small, sensible, natural reform that strengthens the current system, not replaces
it. It keeps what is best about the current system – the constituency link and decisive
election results – but makes it more representative by ensuring MPs have to get over 50%
of the vote in their constituencies and giving voters more of a say.

People said the referendum on devolution in Scotland would inevitably lead to a

referendum on independence. It hasn’t.