The AV Referendum

The campaigns have been launched - succinctly named the 'Yes' and 'No' campaigns. The question - whether to move to an AV electoral system in place of the current 'first past the post' system. Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband are in the 'Yes' camp, David Cameron is in the 'No' camp. So, what are the reasons for change, and what are the reasons for retaining the status quo?

As I see it, the main reason for voting 'Yes' is given as providing a more democratic system. Under the current system, if your chosen candidate does not poll the highest number of votes, then your vote is lost. You could then be seen as being without representation, and MPs can be elected by less than 50% of the vote. Under the AV scheme, you would rank the candidates, and 'rounds' of voting would take place - so in round 1, the lowest placed candidate would drop out, with their voters then going to their 'rank 2' etc, until a candidate polled more than 50%.

However, there are 2 reasons why I think 'No' is more democratic - neither of which can be used by either camp. Firstly - the most recent example of AV in action was the Labour party leadership election. Until the final round, David Miliband was in the lead, and only on final preferences did Ed Miliband come out the winner. I have heard very few people claim it as a famous victory for Ed Miliband, but many saying the wrong Miliband won! Time will tell, but it did not portray AV in a good light however you look at it. Ed Miliband is therefore almost duty bound to support AV, else he risks removing his own mandate to lead the Labour party, if he admits he does not support the system that elected him.

Secondly, AV makes coalitions a far more likely outcome. This is a dismal prospect democratically. Essentially, the leader of the 3rd party (at the moment the Liberal Democrats) would be in a position to choose the Prime Minister and Governing party EVERY time. The government would no longer be chosen by the electorate, but by Nick Clegg, depending on who he could draw up a deal with!!! (Assuming Nick Clegg is still the leader...). The third party could hope to be in Government perpetually - despite coming 3rd in the election, because they would be needed to make a deal with another party to form a government. More sinisterly, manifestos in this scenario become worthless. How many times have you heard David Cameron or Nick Clegg or any number of ministers saying "We did not win the election, so we cannot implement our manifesto". True perhaps. But they take it as carte blanche to invent new policies, as part of the 'Coalition Agreement' which has superceded the manifestos. But the electorate have had NO opportunity to vote on the Coalition Agreement. Democracy has been taken out of the hands of the electorate and placed firmly in the hands of the politicians, to be decided behind closed doors.

Question! How can a system that encourages back-room deals and horse-trading possibly be an advance in democracy?