EXTENDED: You've got another week to add your travel & holiday deals questions for expert MSE Oli as part of the latest Ask An Expert event.
'Is AV really so complex? Or is it just confusion marketing?' blog discussion
edited 19 April 2011 at 11:04AM
in Martin's blogs & appearances & MoneySavingExpert in the news
436 replies
25K views

2.4K Posts
This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.
Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.
Read Martin's "Is AV really so complex? Or is it just confusion marketing?" Blog.
Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Replies
But then again, if you prefer for one party to govern as you don't like the idea of coalitions, then I guess AV isn't the way. Maybe, I guess it depends on how people vote.
If you do like it please hit the thanks button.
The problem isn't how we vote but who there is really to vote for!
Mortgage free - 01/05/2019, mortgage high £200k 2011
My main concern is that the reason that AV is so attractive to certain politicians is that it ensures them a role they would never usually get in a FPTP system. There are sections of our society that will only vote for either the Conservatives or the Labour party, and could never bring themselves to vote for the other party. Therefore their second vote may possibly, by default fall to the only available major political party, the Liberal Democrats.
I have no axe to grind either for or against PR/AV. Personally I think we would have a more democratic system if we just picked a person randomly from each constituency - no political parties, no funding and backhanders. 5 year parliament, no possibility of the same person holding the job twice.
I know that the financial markets would probably punish us for it though as they would not believe that a government picked like this would honour its debts.
What the No Campaign have done firstly is include £130m in that figure for the cost of buying and installing voting machines. Why? Well because that's what the Australians use and they have AV. But we are *NOT* going to have Voting Machines, we have a piece of paper and a pencil, just as we have had for generations and nobody is planning on changing that.
So suddenly over half that £250m disappears leaving £120m
Then they have included the £90m cost of the Referendum, but don't mention that this amount will be spent whether, at the end, we get AV or FPTP.
So that £120m drops to £30m
After that, they include £26m for "voter awareness" although they don't actually explain what that is or why it is needed, especially since, by the end of the Referendum, thanks to coverage in the media virtually all the people will be aware of how AV works.
So the £30m comes down to £4m at least some of which they say will be needed for "more polling stations and more officials".
But *why* do we need more polling stations under AV? We have enough for FPTP (or we should have, despite the debacle at the last elections when people were turned away because the polling stations were closed) and if we don't need more polling stations we don't need more officials. Also, of course, votes are generally counted by unpaid volunteers...
So that £250m they claim will be the "cost" of introducing AV turns out to be smoke and mirrors designed to scare people into supporting a campaign based on lies and misinformation.
You're correct there, indeed there's an old saying that in some parts of the country you could put a red/ blue ribbon on a donkey and get it elected.
But what AV will do is to stop the phenomenon of "Safe Seats", especially when they are used by both Labour and the Tories to "parachute in" one of their cronies to ensure that that person can remain in Parliament after they've been booted out by their previous constituents because you can effectively cast your vote for "Anyone but that person"!
I came up with a similar system for reforming the House of Lords