A sickening story

It appears from this blog that the no campaing have lying to the poorly educated and ill about the AV referendum. I thought there fear mongering lies where bad enough but this is low even for them.

The No campaign has been dishonest.

Right from the very beginning the no campaign has tried to create fear uncertainty and disorder by lying about AV system claiming it is complicated and expensive AV is very simple. If you are literate then you can understand how AV works. They claim it would be expensive and pulled random numbers out of the air yet there is no reason to spend any more money on administering AV. When the politicians are lying through their teeth and creat personal attacks on Nick Clegg to try and get you to vote no then there is something wrong with the no vote.

First past the post produces hung parliaments

First past the post produces hung parliaments. Since Australia introduced AV they have had less hung parliaments than we have had with FPTP.

First past the post is a loser’s charter.

Under FPTP the most popular candidate is not necessarily the one who wins. In Canada’s recent general election 60% of the voters voted against the winning party. The party that should have lost because it couldn’t get a substantive majority in fact won.

First past the post is a politician’s fix

A great many political careerists want you to vote no. They want you to vote no because under AV they would have to appeal to the majority not pander to the biggest special interests group like they do under FPTP. Under FPTP you don’t even have to win a substantive majority to be the winner. We used to use a AV system but it was replaced by with FPTP by politicians for politicians. AV breaks the cycle of voting for two monolithic parties and allows different ideas to have a chance rather than the same old situation off I like C’s ideas but I won’t vote for them because they can’t win so I will vote for A because I hate B. Even though what A proposes is the same as B.

No to AVs three dishonest claims, actually they are outright lies.

The No to AV campaign has 3 main reasons to vote no to AV. One a complete distortion the other two are outright lies. But the whole no to AV campaign has been one of dishonesty and fear mongering from the start.

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.”

If they think a onetime £250 million cost is going to stop education or health care they have not got a clue about how much those actually cost. Healthcare costs £110 Billion a year or about 440X the one of cost for AV. Education costs are approximately £84 billion a year about 336X the one of cost of AV Clearly the claim that it is schools and hospitals or AV is a complete and disgraceful lie.

Cancelling the unnecessary trident replacement at a minimum would save a £24 Billion one of cost and who knows how much per year in maintenance. By doing so you could spend £250million on AV and have over £23 Billon extra to spend on schools and hospitals. Or use that money to buy conventional military equipment that has a genuine use and is under our control unlike trident and its potential replacement.

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.”

Under AV the most popular candidates win First past the post allows for unpopular and weak leaders who are elected with less than majority support. The reason only three countries use it is because it is an anathema to weak careerist politicians who rely on the first past the post system It would have taken heavy campaigning from the non political class to get AV passed in those countries. The suggestion that the politician who comes second or third gets in is ludicrous. Under AV a politician must get a substantive majority (over 50% of the vote) and therefore be a true winner, a truly popular leader. First past the post means a politician can get in with an un-substantive majority (under 50% of the vote) now that is a real losers charter.

AV is fairer and the suggestion it is too complicated is insulting the intelligence of everyone in this country. Filling out the census form is a lot more complicated and it’s not hard. Australians have been using it successfully sin 1918 they don’t think it is complicated at all.

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.”

Australia introduced to alternative vote in 1918 since then they have had 2 hung parliaments in 1940 and 2010. Since 1918 our first past the post has also produced three hung parliaments in 1929, 1974 and 2010. Looking at the facts it shows a hung parliament is slightly less likely under AV not more likely. Therefore political deals are actually more likely under first past the post but that is why career politicians and extremists oppose AV. As for the suggestion that the only vote that counts is Nick Clegg is just a bizarre and outright lie.

Av is to the careerist and extremist politician as garlic is to a vampire that is why so many of the UK’s political failures and extremists are against it.
So there you have it the no to campaigns three main arguments against AV one distortion of reality two outright lies