Yes: The AV X-factor which could change forever the face of British politics

Hilary Benn is a supporter of the Yes to AV campaign and MP for Leeds Central

Britain is facing some profound challenges at the moment. The economy. Jobs. Cuts. So we really do need a political system that works for us.

A year ago, at the last General Election, voters decided that no single party should form a government. And it’s because I think we should make as many votes count as possible that I welcome the referendum on May 5, which will give us the chance to decide whether to change the way we elect our MPs.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The choice we are being asked to make in the first national referendum for nearly 40 years is between the Alternative Vote and the current first-past-the-post system.

The truth is that no electoral system is perfect – all have their strengths and weaknesses – but I think AV is the better system.

Contrary to what some say, AV won’t cost millions; all you need is a pencil, a ballot paper and people to count the votes.

Nor is it complicated; we are very used to making choices involving preferences, and under AV, you can cast just one preference or more than one. It is your choice.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In fact, it is a straightforward system that has been tried and tested in lots of different organisations – political parties, trade unions and community organisations – for decades.

Nor will AV benefit extremists like the BNP; on the contrary, it will make the chances of them winning a seat in Parliament much less likely.

The BNP have won local council seats with low turnouts and less than a third of the vote. AV requires candidates to have the majority support of their constituents.

I can’t imagine circumstances in which most people would give their second preferences to the BNP. So they wouldn’t win. That is why the BNP are opposed to AV and came out in support of the “No” campaign last year.

So why will I be voting “yes” to change the system ?

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Well, first because I think it’s a fairer one than first past the post. Last May, just over a third of all MPs obtained over 50 per cent support of their electorate. That means nearly two-thirds of MPs are elected without the backing of a majority of their voters. I think that’s not good enough, especially when MPs are making big decisions in Parliament.

More than one-third of voters in the 2010 General Election opted for parties other than the big two. When a larger number of people vote against you in an election than for you, but you still win your seat, it cannot be fair or healthy for our democracy.

Secondly, because it will enable more votes to count. In some constituencies, people currently face a dilemma. Do they vote for the party or person they really want, or do they vote for someone else to stop the person or party they really don’t want? What AV does is to remove this dilemma.

Thirdly, it will improve the health of our democracy. Last year’s General Election was decided in just 111 constituencies by fewer than 460,000 voters – 1.6 per cent of the electorate – according to recent independent research. Political parties put most of their money and staff into these few seats. This means that votes in huge swathes of the country count for less. That isn’t good either.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Finally, AV will encourage candidates to listen to more voters. To win, MPs will have to get a majority of all those who vote, so they will have to reach out to people who give their first preference to other parties.

And unlike pure proportional representation, AV keeps the link between MPs and their constituencies. This is one of the great strengths of our system and we should preserve it.

So this is why I will be voting “yes”. AV is fairer and it will encourage more politicians to listen to all their voters. And given the challenges we face, surely that’s a good thing.

Related topics: