Y VOTE MOCK ELECTIONS

On the 5th May 2011 people in the UK will head to the polls to vote YES or NO on this question:

At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the ‘alternative vote’ system be used instead?

The Electoral Commission (the body in charge of overseeing the conduct of UK elections) have put together the below video to explain what is at stake:

The Yes to fairer votes campaign believe AV would be an improvement. They say:

1) 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.

2) 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…

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.

The No to AV campaign disagree with these points and say:

1) 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.

2) 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.

3) 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.

What do you think?