With only two weeks to go until we make our way to the polls, it is important to note how many elections we have on the 5th May, and what they are for.
Most of us will have two ballot papers: one to choose our local councillors on Cheshire West and Chester Council; and another, in the first national referendum since 1975, to vote either Yes or No on introducing the Alternative Vote (AV) to elect Members of Parliament. Some will also have another ballot paper to elect members of local Parish Councils.
The council elections are vastly important and decide how our local services in Chester will be run over the coming years. Since the Conservatives took control of the Council in 2007 we’ve seen local investment, real improvements, a reduction in waste, and no cuts to essential services.
While many Labour run Councils across the country have been refusing to cut waste and inefficiencies, and are instead cutting vital public services, Cheshire West and Chester Council have made £53 million of savings whilst safeguarding the services that all of us rely on.
The Conservatives have started to renew Chester after the mess left behind by Labour; it would be a shame if we let Labour back in to undo the good work that has been done.
Whilst much has been spoken and written in the national press about the AV referendum, it is clear that many people still fail to understand the confusing AV system.
My own opinion is that AV is a typical politician’s fix. It would limit the ability of the people to eject MPs and Governments at a General Election, and instead hand more power to politicians to do backroom deals after an election.
AV is also very complicated, with a corresponding increase in the cost of running elections. It is not surprising that one of the largest financial backers of the Yes campaign also owns a company making electronic vote counting machines that may need to be used in AV Elections.
AV is also very unfair. It will end our tradition of One Person, One Vote, and result in a situation where some people have their vote counted several times, and others just once. It can also produce obscure results where the candidate finishing in 3rd place is elected.
Since AV is unfair, obscure, complicated, expensive and undemocratic, I will have no hesitation in voting No.
You are wrong that AV ends the tradition of One Person, One Vote. Under AV, whilst e.g. my 2nd, or 3rd preference vote is being counted, your 1st preference vote is being counted for a SECOND, or THIRD time. In each round, each vote is counted once. The only exception to this is if you vote for an unpopular party such as the BNP, and fail to supply sufficient alternative choices, in which case your ballot paper is no longer used.
An equivalent way of counting this is to focus on the last, decisive, round only, where all voters have 1 vote. The independent Political Studies Association, uses this approach, saying in their AV briefing document, (see the exectutive summary):
“AV would uphold the principle of “one person, one vote”. Every voter would still be treated equally; each vote would count only once in deciding who is elected in each constituency.”
http://www.psa.ac.uk/PSAPubs/TheAlternativeVoteBriefingPaper.pdf
If you are still unconvinced, please couble check with the Electoral Commission, as I did earlier this week.
There are of course valid political arguments in favour of 1st past the post, so I am disappointed to see the erroneous suggestion that AV ends the principle of 1 Person 1 Vote, being made here.
Lesley Whitfield