1. The BNP want you to vote no
The No campaign have been claiming that adopting AV Plus as our voting system will open the door for fringe parties like the BNP. So if that's the case, why are the BNP urging their supporters to vote no? Channel 4's Fact Check blog reviewed the evidence and found that AV plus would be highly unlikely to help the BNP get into power, which makes a lot of sense when you think about it, because for any party to win a seat under AV, at least 50% of the constituency would have to choose them for first, second or third preference. The BNP simply aren't that popular and would have a much better chance of winning seats under the current system, whereby a candidate can become an MP with as little as 30% of the vote. As the BNP's Deputy Chairman Simon Darby said: "We are never going to get our feet under the table under the AV system."
2. AV Plus will reduce the need for tactical voting
My grandad was a Labour supporter all of his life, but when he moved to Timperley he was forced to vote Liberal Democrat as it was his best chance of stopping the Conservatives from winning the seat. This story is repeated all over the country at every election. Conservatives vote Liberal Democrat in the hope of stopping Labour from winning. Labour supporters vote Liberal Democrat in hopes of stopping the Conservatives from winning. Lots of people who would rather support the Green Party find themselves voting Labour or Liberal Democrat because they don't want the Conservatives getting in. Under AV, you can give your first preference vote to the party you really want to win, then choose two more candidates to vote for (you don't have to choose three candidates if you don't want). So there's no need to try and guess who might win in advance and then vote accordingly. You can vote for the party you want, every single time, and it won't mean that you're indirectly helping your least favourite party getting into power.
3. Coalitions can happen under the current system too
One of the most popular arguments against AV Plus is that it can lead to hung parliaments, coalition governments and "shady, back door deals" where parties compromise on their beliefs in order to get into power. In May 2010, the Conservatives won 36% of the overall vote share, with Labour getting 29% and the Liberal Democrats getting 23%. That means that the majority of voters, 52% in total, voted for left of centre parties, and yet the Conservatives were able to take power by going into a coalition (with details hammered out behind closed doors) with the Liberal Democrats, a party they have previously appeared to have little in common with. The resulting coalition government wasn't voted for by anyone, and it happened as a direct result of our current First Past the Post system.
But coalitions aren't the worst thing that can occur under the present system. In February 1974, Labour took power as the party with most seats, even though they came SECOND in terms of overall vote share. That's right, under FPTP, the party that comes second can take power without going into a coalition. Remember that the next time you see the No 2 AV campaign pushing their trite "horse race where the fastest horse loses" comparision.
4. Some votes are more important than others under the current system
Until 2010, no politician ever knocked on my door to canvass for my vote, because my seat was considered a "safe seat" for the Labour party. My vote was essentially worthless - if I'd voted for Labour, my vote would just be an extra unnecessary vote, but if I'd voted for anyone else, I would have been throwing my vote away. In every single election, the overall result is decided by what happens in a small number of "swing constituencies" and these constituencies are the only place where anybody bothers to canvass for votes. Why should the votes of indecisive swing voters be worth more than the votes of those in safe seats? People have fought and died for our right to vote, and it's only right that ALL of our votes should count.
5. The "No 2 AV" campaign are looking increasingly desperate
Why do the No campaign feel it's necessary to show photos of vulnerable, hospitalised babies with the slogan "She doesn't need AV" on them? Why do the No campaign feel it's necessary to mislead the public on the cost of AV (it's no more expensive than the current system), the likelihood of the BNP getting in under AV (they're more likely to get in under the current system) and the complexity of both systems?
What I find especially insulting is the idea that the general public are too stupid to comprehend AV. It's actually a pretty simple system - you just choose your first preference, second preference and third preference votes by putting a number 1, 2 or 3 next to the appropriate candidate. There are numerous forms we find ourselves filling in all the time (tax forms, for example) which are far more difficult than voting under AV. Counting the votes isn't particularly difficult either - you simply eliminate the candidate who comes the last and reassign their votes until someone has more than 50%.
The desperation of the "No 2 AV" campaign is easy to explain - the current system is morally indefensible. It means that many votes don't count at all, that many voters are not able to vote for their prefered party because they feel obliged to vote tactically, and that politicians who are important to a party can simply be placed in a "safe seat" rather than having to fight to stay in government. It's an absolute travesty of democracy and the only reason people are campaigning to keep it is because they believe it benefits their own party. It's cynical, patronising and absolutely unforgiveable.
