Alternative vote referendum

[Patrician]

On May 5th there's going to be a referendum on the UK regarding proposed changes to the current voting system. I thought it'd be interesting to see what my fellow compatriots here at KK are feeling towards the choice of sticking with FPTP or adopting AV.

[Mistressmaster]

Keep first past the post. AV voting sounds like it'll help the Lib Dem's in future and I'm not making the mistake of helping Nick Clegg get into power again :Z Even if it is a coalition. The range of subjects I wanted to take in the second year of my degree but now can't thanks to him is unbelievable.

[Ballwinkle]

I perfer fptp, although neither would really make a difference in my area. I don't like the idea of voting for a second best party.

[dotted]

As an ignorant Dane, please enlighten me as to the difference between the two options.

[Patrician]

Current system: first past the post - candidate with the most votes wins the election (but not necessarily the majority of the votes).

Proposed system: alternative vote -

Voters rank candidates in order of preference, and their votes are initially allocated to their first choice candidate. If after this initial count no candidate has a majority of votes cast, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and votes for that candidate are redistributed according to the voters' second preferences. This process continues until one candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, upon which they are declared the winner.

Anti-electoral reform:

AV is costly

The change to AV will cost up to an additional £250 million. Local councils would have to waste money on costly electronic vote counting machines and expensive voter education campaigns. With ordinary families facing tough times can we really afford to spend a quarter of a billion pounds of taxpayers' money bringing in a new voting system? Schools and hospitals, or the Alternative Vote – that's the choice in this referendum.

AV is complex and unfair

The winner should be the candidate that comes first, but under AV the candidate who comes second or third can actually be elected. That’s why it is used by just three countries in the world – Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea. Voters should decide who the best candidate is, not the voting system. We can't afford to let the politicians off the hook by introducing a loser's charter.

AV is a politician's fix

AV leads to more hung parliaments, backroom deals and broken promises like the Lib Dem tuition fees U-turn. Instead of the voters choosing the government, politicians would hold power. Under AV, the only vote that really counts is Nick Clegg's. We can't afford to let the politicians decide who runs our country.

Pro-electoral reform:

MPs working harder to earn - and keep - our support

Your next MP would have to aim to get more than 50% of the vote to be sure of winning. At present they can be handed power with just one vote in three. They’ll need to work harder to win - and keep - your support.

A bigger say on who your local MP is

Ranking candidates gives you more say - in who comes first and who comes last. If your favourite doesn’t win, you can still have a say. It’s as easy as 1,2,3…

Tackling the ‘jobs for life' culture

Too many MPs have their ‘safe seats’ for life. Force complacent politicians to sit up and listen, and reach out to the communities they seek to represent.

AV keeps what works with our current system, and eliminates many of its weaknesses. It's a long overdue upgrade to make a 19th century system fit for the politics of the 21st century.

Our parliament will better represent our communities. MPs will have to have a better view of what your community thinks - and that's because they will have to listen harder to your views.

It’s simple. If someone wants to represent your community they need the votes of the majority of the community. That’s what making every vote count really means.