Should feminists vote ‘Yes’ in the referendum on the Alternative Vote system?

[David51]

This system is supposed to help women candidates. Why?

Because under the current system, where you only have one vote, Mr Average (Male) Voter may be reluctant to vote for a female candidate. Whereas if he can vote for more than one candidate and there's a woman on the list he is more likely to "risk" giving her one of his votes.

If enough voters behave this way the total number of votes could be enough to get her elected.

To see how this works, click on: Link to document explaining the new system

And if the system does in fact lead to more women getting elected, more of them will take the trouble to stand in the next election, meaning that even more will get elected etc etc

I'm not sure I'm convinced by this argument but would be interested to know what others think.

I would hope people were voting because they agree with someone (or the candidates party) politically rather than because they are male or female.

hi Saltatrix

I agree in principle but some people have a problem voting for a female candidate even when they agree with her politics.

They might have this problem because they are sexist, or - more subtle, this - because they think other voters are sexist and therefore the female candidate is bound to lose anyway. And there's no point in voting for someone who's bound to lose.

The AV system is supposed to help get around this by making a vote for a female a less 'risky' proposition.

AV will also mean that people are likely to vote for who they want with first preference, which means that the results will better reflect true consituency feelings rather than representing how people vote in order to achieve the best of a two party vote - this means that a minority party who puts a female candidate to the fore will get votes proportional to support for the candidate and/or party instead of people saying 'well I would vote (eg) Green, but they won't win so I'll vote Libdem as the best opposition to labour.

This means that if half the electorate wants to vote for a female candidate and that female candidate is for a minority party, people are nore likely to have the courage to say 'first preference Ms X' and if this swing with confidence is common, that lack of fear of voting for who you really want, will mean more minority candidates getting in - if more minority candidates are women - well so be it!

OOps sorry forgot to make the main point -that a fairer system that has less of the automatic tendancy towards two parties (as first past the post does automatically) will take away some power from those two parties/strongholds of male dominance and open un the political field more (also if we get AV and say a consortium of female independents ensured that there was a woman in every constituency, to whom feminists/supporters of equality undertook to give their first vote to to send a message to the country, it would be very effective in an AV system and the 'female' view may be able to be highlighted as the dominant parties fight for a higher share of each 'female collective' candidate's second and third preference votes.4

I think it will be a really exciting time for new politics....

I think everyone should support AV (or other forms of proportional representation) as it is a fairer way of representing the electorate's wishes. If that means that women or any other currently under-represented group does better then that's a good thing, but its a by-product of fairness rather than an aim in itself.

I doubt many male voters deliberately avoid voting for female candidates, they are more likely to vote for their favoured party, whatever the gender of the candidate. But AV means that those who would like to vote for eg the Green Party, or a local single-issue candidate can do so without the worry that their vote will be "lost" and therefore their least-favourite party will win anyway.