Yes, No, Meh? Alternative Vote Webchat with John Prescott and Katie Ghose, TODAY at 11am

[KatieMumsnet]

Yes, No, Meh? If you haven't already, the time to make your mind up on AV is getting closer, so we've invited John Prescott from the No camp and Katie Ghose from the Yes campaign to answer your questions about the referendum. Join us for a webchat at 11am, tomorrow, Wed 27 April.

Katie Ghose is an experienced campaigner and barrister and chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society. As chair of the Yes to AV campaign, Katie has said 'the alternative vote is a small change that will make a big difference - making MPs work harder to get and stay elected, and giving you more of a say'.

John Prescott was deputy prime minister from 1997 - 2007, is now a life peer and is campaigning against AV, urging people to say No to 'hung parliaments, coalitions, broken promises and a weakening of democracy'.

Whatever your take on AV, hope you can join us to debate the pros and cons.

@WildhoodChunder

Do you think AV would encourage those standing for election to work harder to communicate why we should vote for them, and in turn would this lead to better voter turn-out?

I resent someone saying that I don?t work hard and am sure most MPs feel the same. They are concerned about the electorate and work very long hours. Including weekends.

In Australia when they introduced AV less people voted. The turnout went down 20% so they had to introduce compulsory voting. I certainly don?t want that over here, do you?

I agree with that Katie, they'll never get enough 1st place votes to stay in the ballot so that argument is flawed.

Still voting No though, I just can't see how AV is an improvement.

@JohnPrescott

This issue of AV isn't just about the type of voting, it's part of a major constitutional fix by this Coalition. They are fixing the vote, they're reducing the number of MPs by 50 and increasing the Lords, reducing the chance of removing the Govn by a confidence vote. It's a constitutional fix and a policy that nobody voted for.

The only choice we - as voters - are being given on May 5th, is to change the way we elect our MPs. If you feel ignored and that politicians don't listen to you, then vote Yes. Under AV politicians will have to aim for 50% - that means reaching out to more of us and listening to our concerns, whether that's housing, jobs or our kids' schools.

@PPT

Am I right in thinking that only Australia and Fiji and Papua New Guinea use the AV. And that Australians are wanting to get rid of the system? Why should we use a system that other similar countries to ourselves don't?

It is a complete myth that Australia want to get rid of AV. They don?t and there are no moves to change their electoral system there.

Around the world, people are moving away from First Past the Post because it is not suited to multi-party systems like we have in the UK.

Since 1945, only three of the new democracies have adopted First past the Post ? Ukraine, Albania and Macedonia ? and even they have abandoned it. In modern times reform is a one way street ? away from First Past the Post.

AV is actually already used widely in the UK. 14 million people in UK already use it in businesses, unions and charities. We also use it to elect the London Mayor and I never noticed anyone having a problem with it there. Also, all the political parties use forms of AV themselves in electing their leaders, and it is used widely in parliament.

I get suspicious when I hear politicians who use it themselves telling the rest of us we are too thick to understand 1,2,3.

One of the main benefits I see with AV (although I'm a much bigger fan of PR) is that it guarantees that the party with the lowest percentage of votes WON'T get in. I can't understand why people support FPTP when it allows a party to "win" when ~70% of the turnout didn't vote for them Tories/SNP .

I'm sorry, I had to endure Alec Salmond on the radio this morning spouting out catchy soundbites like verbal diahorrea, contradicting himself with every other sentence. The SNP got into power here with something like 33% of the vote in 2007. It was bad enough then, but to see something similar happen in the Westminster elections last year (and then see the Nick Clegg sell out his beliefs in favour of getting into bed with Call Me Dave) was so disheartening.

@DamnYouAutocorrect

I agree that the boundary fixing is not good (although the system is currently unfairly skewed in Labour's favour, isn't it?).

I like fixed term parliaments myself.

Neither of these things is on the ballot paper though so talking about them here is a bit of a red herring. Keeping FPTP won't mean that the boundary changes don't go through.

It's quite true that boundary changes come under whatever system but there's no doubt that the boundary changes and AV and fixed term parliaments will strengthen the coalition and are designed to do so.

Moreover by reducing the members of Parliament and increasing the members of the Lords it's hardly adding to the democratic balance, is it?

Katie, why has the Yes campaign not made more of the point that AV is just the first step towards a more proportional system? Just because a vote on AV was all the LibDems could extract from Labour or the Tories doesnt mean that they dont want more than AV, and the fundamental fairness of fuller proportionality would be much easier to argue for than AV seems to have been. And why haven't you dismissed so many of the "No" arguments with the X-Factor analogy which so many people would understand?

@Crumblemum

I just don't really understand the point of AV. Without wanting to be rude, doesn't it just make people feel better about not backing the winner? ie I live in a Labour seat, but like the greens. I vote 1. Green, 2.Lib Dems. My vote is transferred to Lib Dems, and even if they win, it isn't my first choice, it's just deferred tactical voting.

First Past the Post isn't perfect, but at leasts its obvious.

Crumblemum, AV will give you the chance to fully express your preferences. If you want to vote Green you can and don?t feel you can vote tactically.

The winner I don?t feel is a winner when they get elected with most voters voting against them. When MPs are winning seats with less than a third of the vote these days I don?t think that is right.

AV allows voters to express their preferences and means all candidates will have to get a clear majority to win. It raises the bar for politicians to get and keep their jobs and means they will have to work harder for our vote.

Hi, I'm responding to some of your questions about turn-out. We know that 6 million of us are forced to vote tactically - for someone we don't want to keep out someone we like even less. And some of us don't vote at all, we can't see the point, especially if we live in a safe seat. AV can't solve all our political problems, but it does give us all more say - we vote for who we want to win but if your favourite doesn't make it you can still influence who wins. Turnout falling in Australia was nothing to do with AV. Research shows that Australians are more satisfied with the health of their democracy than we are with ours!

@CatPower

One of the main benefits I see with AV (although I'm a much bigger fan of PR) is that it guarantees that the party with the lowest percentage of votes WON'T get in. I can't understand why people support FPTP when it allows a party to "win" when ~70% of the turnout didn't vote for them Tories/SNP .

I'm sorry, I had to endure Alec Salmond on the radio this morning spouting out catchy soundbites like verbal diahorrea, contradicting himself with every other sentence. The SNP got into power here with something like 33% of the vote in 2007. It was bad enough then, but to see something similar happen in the Westminster elections last year (and then see the Nick Clegg sell out his beliefs in favour of getting into bed with Call Me Dave) was so disheartening.

That of course is less likely to happen with FPTP and even with PR minority parties in a coalition make the decision of which main party becomes the government. PR, whatever system, also leads to the breaking of the constituency link in many cases and that's central to the democratic process, especially for accountability.

Hi,
How will AV affect the areas that are safe seats for a good reason? I live in a former mining town in the north east - we will always be Labour, and our MP was the second to be declared after our neighbour this time - everyone jokes that they might as well just weigh the votes. People are still suffering from the last Tory government up here.

Surely no-one is saying that towns like this will suddenly start voting in the greens or whoever? What's in voting reform for us? Apart from less money to spend on vital services?

I live in a very safe Tory seat but still go and vote, knowing it won't make a blind bit of difference - I have a right to vote and I'm going to use it. If everyone did this, then maybe these safe seats wouldn't be safe after all!

@JohnPrescott

[quote CatPower]

One of the main benefits I see with AV (although I'm a much bigger fan of PR) is that it guarantees that the party with the lowest percentage of votes WON'T get in. I can't understand why people support FPTP when it allows a party to "win" when ~70% of the turnout didn't vote for them Tories/SNP .

I'm sorry, I had to endure Alec Salmond on the radio this morning spouting out catchy soundbites like verbal diahorrea, contradicting himself with every other sentence. The SNP got into power here with something like 33% of the vote in 2007. It was bad enough then, but to see something similar happen in the Westminster elections last year (and then see the Nick Clegg sell out his beliefs in favour of getting into bed with Call Me Dave) was so disheartening.

That of course is less likely to happen with FPTP and even with PR minority parties in a coalition make the decision of which main party becomes the government. PR, whatever system, also leads to the breaking of the constituency link in many cases and that's central to the democratic process, especially for accountability.

[/quote]

CatPower, I agree with you. AV makes sure that the person with majority support is elected - it's as simple as that.

@DamnYouAutocorrect

My challenge, if you choose to accept it, is for each of you to say one positive thing about your position that doesn't fall foul of Channel 4's Factcheck.

(So Katie, you can't say: that there's a link between safe seats and the expenses scandal; that AV would lead to fewer safe seats; that MPs under AV would need to get 50% support (although most will have to aim for it); or that David Cameron was elected using AV (he wasn't, it was multi-round voting.

John, you can't say: that the change would cost £250 million and require expensive voting machines; that it would lead to more hung parliaments or coalitions; that AV would benefit the BNP or other extremist parties; that AV gives some people's votes more weight than others'.)

And, if I'm allowed another question, aren't you both a bit ashamed of the distortions and dishonesties that have characterised both campaigns?

I would dispute your assertion that it wouldn?t lead to fewer safe seats. It will cut the number of safe seats where Mps currently have jobs for life based on a minority of the vote.

I agree with you though on your wider point on how the distortions have completely overshadowed what should be a sensible debate on how we do our politics. It is a shame because I think people are actually desperate to know what this AV thing is all about in order to make up their minds but can?t get a handle on the issue because of the misinformation around.

I would say AV is not a cure all for our political ills. But this is a small step we can take to make our politics a bit better. At the last election, around two-thirds of MPs won their seats when a majority of their constituents had not voted for them. It cannot be right or fair that in the current system MPs can get elected on fewer than three out of ten votes, with the vast majority of their constituents not having voted for them.
First Past the Post may have worked in the 1950s ? when we had a two party system and most MPS secured over 50% of the vote in their constituencies. But here in 2011 that is no longer the case. We need to update the system for the times we live in. Those who are arguing for First Past the Post need to defend the fact that MPs can get elected with fewer than three in ten votes.

@katieghose

Hi, I'm responding to some of your questions about turn-out. We know that 6 million of us are forced to vote tactically - for someone we don't want to keep out someone we like even less. And some of us don't vote at all, we can't see the point, especially if we live in a safe seat. AV can't solve all our political problems, but it does give us all more say - we vote for who we want to win but if your favourite doesn't make it you can still influence who wins. Turnout falling in Australia was nothing to do with AV. Research shows that Australians are more satisfied with the health of their democracy than we are with ours!

It's just not true about Australia. AV was introduced in 1923 I think. The voting turn out dropped nearly 20%. The coalition of the 2 right wing parties introduced compulsory voting. AV will lead to PR and AV could lead to compulsory voting if you're quoting Aus as the eg. And the latest opinion poll in Aus, showed 60% of the public wanting to get rid of AV. And there's only 3 countries in the world that use it - the other 2 are Fiji and Papua New Guinea. And btw the cost for AV in Aus is twice the individual voting cost for each elector in the UK.

Mr Prescott, I usually find myself agreeing with you in interviews etc (and this would be true even if I wasn't a member of the Labour party ) but on this issue I really have to disagree.

In the UK we have such a low turnout for all elections, due in no small part to people feeling like their vote is meaningless, particularly in safe seats. A move towards AV would at least give those disenchanted voters the understanding that their votes do count. I don't believe AV or PR would cut the links between the elected member and their constituents, in fact I believe that proving to the electorate that each and every vote is vital would only strengthen the links between the people and the MPs and would increase turnout and political activity.

It seems to me that people often like several parties - I would have been happy with labour, lib dem or green party MPs representing me. But with FPTP I can only vote for one, and so I have to guess who everyone else is likely to vote for.
But it seems Tories generally are only happy with one party, and so their vote is not split.

Do you agree that FPTP splits the voters, denying them their prefered candidate, and letting a minority (but united) party gain power unfairly?

@Pram1nTheHall

Katie, wouldn't you rather just have STV?

John, do you or don't you believe that one person, one vote is pretty worthless when votes don't have equal value? FPTP massively privileges some votes over others and is inherently anti-democratic. Is there any system you think is better than FPTP?

There is only one choice on the ballot paper. Change versus more of the same old politics. The Yes campaign is supported by people who support proportional representation, and those, like Jack Straw, who do not. What we are all agreed on is that First Past the Post no longer suits the way we vote today and that AV is a small step to make our politics better.

@ButterpieandCheese

Hi,
How will AV affect the areas that are safe seats for a good reason? I live in a former mining town in the north east - we will always be Labour, and our MP was the second to be declared after our neighbour this time - everyone jokes that they might as well just weigh the votes. People are still suffering from the last Tory government up here.

Surely no-one is saying that towns like this will suddenly start voting in the greens or whoever? What's in voting reform for us? Apart from less money to spend on vital services?

This question shows the uncertainty of the electorate about change because the North East rejected PR for regional govn in the last referendum we had in this country ten years ago. In the Common Market referendum in the 70s they voted to stay in rather than come out. I think there is a general reluctance amongst the electorate to vote for change and certainly the uncertainty that goes with it.

I think I'm voting "no", but can I just point out that most people don't understand the system of voting in MPs anyway? So we get people saying things like "we didn't vote for Gordon Brown", and I want to slap them and say that, no, you voted for your MP, who is a member of a party, and the leader of the party (voted for by the members of the party) which has the most MPs, gets to be PM. So, if you voted Labour, then you voted to allow Labour to choose the prime minister.

IME, most people don't get it. I once had to explain it to a group of first year politics students.

Hi, a few of you have asked about safe seats. AV will cut the number of safe seats which gives parties more reason to campaign in those areas and talk to us about our concerns. Under first past the post, you only matter to politicians if you happen to be one of the few hundred thousand people living in a very competitive, swing, seat. That's not right - we should all count and have our say. AV will make sure that where ever we live, politicians will have more reason to knock on our doors and talk to us. mumutd - you say you live in a safe Tory seat - whoever you support, AV gives you more of a say because you can express a preference and the same goes for you, Butterpieandcheese under AV your vote will count for more because you pick your favourite but if they are knocked out you still get to express a preference about who should win.

@CatPower

Mr Prescott, I usually find myself agreeing with you in interviews etc (and this would be true even if I wasn't a member of the Labour party ) but on this issue I really have to disagree.

In the UK we have such a low turnout for all elections, due in no small part to people feeling like their vote is meaningless, particularly in safe seats. A move towards AV would at least give those disenchanted voters the understanding that their votes do count. I don't believe AV or PR would cut the links between the elected member and their constituents, in fact I believe that proving to the electorate that each and every vote is vital would only strengthen the links between the people and the MPs and would increase turnout and political activity.

Hi CatPower,
You know the biggest turnouts are always when the electorate decides it wants to change the govn in a substantial way, hence Thatcher followed by the tremendous turn out for the Blair govn and there was a tremendous feeling of relief at that 1997 election. You don't get that with coalitions until the politicians have met in the smoke filled room as this coalition did. Btw phenomenal turn out after the second world war, after 6 years of coalition led by Churchill, for a Labour government. You can get fundamental change with FPTP, which is what politics is all about.

I like HHLimbo's question, can John answer that one please?