In response to http://dansviolenttorpedooftruth.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-happened-to-freedom-of-speech-2.html. On most things we agree but I’m not sure I agree with you here. The topic of free speech is a difficult one and I think that superinjuctions have a place. I agree that superinjunctions are primarily for the rich and that normal people couldn’t dream of affording one. However just because someone is rich and in the public eye through the media does not mean that their private life is public knowledge. No one should have to lose their privacy because of their job and yes I know they get paid a lot, but money is not a good reason to lose privacy. Some people say that it comes with the job and it is their fault for taking the job, but in reality the people who say this are nosy or want to exploit these famous people. The case of MP’s expense claims is completely different. MPs work for the public and spend public money therefore it should be a matter of public record how they spend that money and they should be scrutinised. The difference is whether something should be known because it is in the publics interest or whether it should be known because the public are interested in it. The second is not a good reason for something to be public knowledge but the first is.
The referendum on the alternative vote (av) vs first past the post (FPTP) is coming up on the 5th of May. So let’s take a look at the facts about AV and look at the benefits and problems with the AV system.
First off, how does the system work? Normally when you vote you choose one candidate but in AV you rank the candidate in the order you would vote for them. Then if after all the votes are counted no one has a majority then the one with the lowest votes is eliminated and the votes are counted again. This is repeated until one candidate has more than 50% of the vote.
Ok so what was FPTP? For this you vote for one candidate and the votes are counted as they come in. After the majority of the votes have been counted but NOT all, if one candidate is far enough ahead then they are declared the winner.
Well, what is the advantage of the AV system? The biggest advantage of AV is that all the votes are counted. Normally if you do a postal vote or turn up very late on polling day your vote may not actually be counted. It also takes into account how you rank the other candidates, so if you vote Conservative but don’t want Labour in then you can rank Labour accordingly. It is therefore more likely to represent the true feelings of the voters. Finally, it allows you to support other parties that have less chance of getting elected. For example, if you like the policies of the Green Party but don’t want to waste your vote, under the AV system you could do this. However, under the FPTP system you would probably just choose from Labour and the Conservatives.
But why do we use FPTP if AV is better? It’s not necessarily a better system. AV is a fairer system than FPTP but it is not perfect. FPTP is also a good system and benefits from the result being determined very quickly after polling. It is still used mainly because of historical reasons.
So why is it not perfect? Because it still doesn’t represent everyone’s views in parliament. Under the FPTP system 60% of voters are represented in parliament by 80% of the seats. This is because of voting boundaries. The AV system could even out this bias but the numbers will still be distorted.
So is there a perfect solution? No, and this is why there is so much debate about which system to use. The fairest solution is proportional representation (PR) but this is limited by the fact that it is difficult to implement with the current parliament structure.
My opinion? Well I think AV is a good STEP in the right direction. It is a fairer system and that is good. The problem with the current system is the two most popular parties take the middle ground and therefore don’t give you any choice. This is highlighted by the fact that the Labour government (a traditionally worker class orientated party) has increased the divide between rich and poor more than the Conservatives had previously. However, I don’t think it will be implemented. This is because neither Labour or Conservative voters want to dilute their say (power breeds corruption after-all). This is something I noticed talking to several Labour and Conservative voters. It seems that they would rather their party has more of a say instead of wanting a fairer system. It’s sad but that is the reality. It also seems very short sighted. No one agrees 100% on policies with their party and by biasing the system you will limit your choice in the future. It is unlikely we will ever get a PR system though, especially with this attitude. Let’s hope I’m wrong.
