Mary Ann Sieghart: Vote Yes for evolution, not revolution

The anger and scaremongering is so disproportionate to the reform you wonder if they're all looking at the same voting system

For much of my life, I've been doomed to live in places where my vote doesn't count. Voting for my preferred party has been as useful as tearing up my ballot paper and scattering it like confetti over the canvassers. So, at many elections, I've been forced to put a cross against a candidate from a party I detest, merely because I detest it marginally less than the party that might otherwise win. Is this really a good way to elect a government?

I only ask because all the argument over the AV referendum has been about the drawbacks of AV. Isn't it time we talked about the drawbacks of first-past-the-post (FPTP) too? A week on Thursday, we're going to make a choicebetween two systems. It's not just "yes" or "no" to AV; it's also "yes" or "no" to FPTP. So let's have a hard look at just how flawed the current system is.

Most annoyingly for the voter, it often forces us to vote dishonestly. We can't cast a ballot for the party we want, but instead have to vote tactically for the party that has the best chance of beating the party we like least. This in itself relies on making assumptions about which party is currently in second place and how other voters in the constituency are likely to act on those assumptions.

Under AV, no vote is a wasted vote. If you want to vote Green or Lib Dem or Monster Raving Loony Party, that's fine. You can happily put a '1' by the party you like best, in the knowledge that your '2' and '3' will also help to influence the result. The tellers count your votes and – at last – your vote counts.

Your vote can count in another way too. Under the current system, Labour and Conservative voters are nearly four times as powerful as Lib Dem voters. It takes, on average, 33,000 people to elect a Labour MP, 35,000 for a Conservative, but 120,000 for a Liberal Democrat. How fair is that?

AV isn't strictly proportional, but it is a bit more so than FPTP. The Liberal Democrats would tend to have more seats for any given share of the vote. Whether you think this is a good or a bad thing shouldn't depend on your partisan sympathies. Whatever your view of the Lib Dems, it can't be right that our electoral system is so heavily stacked against them.

Finally, FPTP contains no incentive for parties to reach out beyond their narrow base. They can have a majority of the voters against them, and still win. AV makes them look for second and third preferences as well as firsts. Right-wing Conservatives and left-wing Labourites object to this for exactly the same reason that I approve of it. I like the moderating influence of AV – the way it allows leaders toignore the nuttier wings of their parties in the interest of gathering up more centrist second preferences.

Of course AV has its faults. Which system doesn't? If there were a perfect electoral system, every country in the world would be using it by now. But AV is some way better than the hugely imperfect system we have now. Put the two next to each other, and AV wins by a head.

This is not a radical change, though. We're not going to move from a system that produces decisive majorities to one that gives us permanent coalitions. Political scientists reckon that almost all the elections since the war would have ended up with the same party in charge had we conducted them under AV. So why all the sound and fury from its opponents?

The anger and scaremongering is so disproportionate to the scale of the reform that it makes me wonder whether both sides have been looking at the same voting system. Perhaps the opponents of AV have confused it with the single transferable vote? Or is it just that, in their narrow tribalism, they can't bear for their party to lose even one seat under a different system?

The rumblings on the right of the Tory party are particularly disturbing. First there is the claim that, if the Yes side wins on a low turnout, the result will lack legitimacy. Why? Nobody suggests that local or general elections won on a low turnout are not legitimate. If people feel strongly enough about reform, in either direction, they will go out and vote. If they don't, they can't complain about the result. Votes are there to be used.

Then the Conservatives on the right point to the "danger" of the referendum being carried by Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish votes. Because the devolved assemblies and parliament are up for election next week, voters there are more likely to turn out. They are also more likely to vote "yes" to AV because they have seen different voting systems in action and have experienced their perfectly sensible results.

What if the English vote "no" on a small turnout, but the Yes side wins overall? Well, may I remind the right-wing Tories that they are members of the Conservative and Unionist Party? This is a united kingdom, and the votes of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish citizens are just as valid as those of the English. The Westminster Parliament represents the whole of the UK – how England votes is no more relevant than how Billericay or Banff vote.

Yet the Tory renegades are threatening nuclear consequences if this goes through. The MP Julian Lewis said last week: "I would be prepared to consider any legitimate means available to find a way of either reversing or circumventing the outcome." He and his allies might vote against the Bill that creates new constituency boundaries and reduces the number of MPs. Since, under the Coalition agreement, the 2015 election can only be held under AV if the redrawn boundaries are used, the renegades' action could overturn the voice of the people.

That would be an outrage. The first time for generations that we actually have a say on how our democracy works, and the ruling class reverses our decision. Talk about illegitimacy! It is almost worth voting "yes" to call their bluff. If they really believe that they have a right to ignore the will of the people, we should challenge them to discredit themselves and live with the consequences.

Many a column yard has been written about whether defeat would be worse for Nick Clegg or for David Cameron, about whether the Coalition can survive a Yes vote or a No vote. But let's go back to basics. This is, probably, a once-in-a-lifetime chance for us to pass judgment on our current voting system and consider whether it might not be improved by allowing us to cast our votes more honestly.

It's not a vote for a revolution; only for a small, evolutionary change. We hardly ever get consulted about these things, and it's only thanks to a psephological accident producing a hung Parliament that we have the opportunity next week. If we don't bother to vote now, we should never complain againabout the political system. And if we allow ourselves to be swayed by the scare stories coming out of the No camp, we don't deserve to think of ourselves as intelligent citizens.

So, please, turn out and vote. Make your vote count. Decide on the facts, not the frenzy. And just for once, let the politicians know who's boss.

Start your day with The Independent, sign up for daily news emails
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
ebooksAn introduction to the ground rules of British democracy
Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
Independent Dating

By clicking 'Search' you
are agreeing to our
Terms of Use.

iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Recruitment Genius: Legal Print Room Manager

£18000 - £22000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: A Legal Print Room Manager is r...

Recruitment Genius: Mortgage Administration Team Leader

Negotiable: Recruitment Genius: This company prides itself on its ability to p...

Recruitment Genius: Mortgage Advisor

Negotiable: Recruitment Genius: This company prides itself on its ability to p...

Recruitment Genius: Administrator / Co-ordinator

£20000 - £25000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This M&E Contractor is looking ...

Day In a Page

Mullah Omar, creator of the Taliban, is dead... for the fourth time

Mullah Omar, creator of the Taliban, is dead... again

I was once told that intelligence services declare their enemies dead to provoke them into popping up their heads and revealing their location, says Robert Fisk
Margaret Attwood on climate change: 'Time is running out for our fragile, Goldilocks planet'

Margaret Attwood on climate change

The author looks back on what she wrote about oil in 2009, and reflects on how the conversation has changed in a mere six years
New Dr Seuss manuscript discovered: What Pet Should I Get? goes on sale this week

New Dr Seuss manuscript discovered

What Pet Should I Get? goes on sale this week
Oculus Rift and the lonely cartoon hedgehog who could become the first ever virtual reality movie star

The cartoon hedgehog leading the way into a whole new reality

Virtual reality is the 'next chapter' of entertainment. Tim Walker gives it a try
Ants have unique ability to switch between individual and collective action, says study

Secrets of ants' teamwork revealed

The insects have an almost unique ability to switch between individual and collective action
Donovan interview: The singer is releasing a greatest hits album to mark his 50th year in folk

Donovan marks his 50th year in folk

The singer tells Nick Duerden about receiving death threats, why the world is 'mentally ill', and how he can write a song about anything, from ecology to crumpets
Let's Race simulator: Ultra-realistic technology recreates thrill of the Formula One circuit

Simulator recreates thrill of F1 circuit

Rory Buckeridge gets behind the wheel and explains how it works
Twitter accused of 'Facebookisation' over plans to overhaul reverse-chronological timeline

Twitter accused of 'Facebookisation'

Facebook exasperates its users by deciding which posts they can and can’t see. So why has Twitter announced plans to do the same?
Jane Birkin asks Hermès to rename bag - but what else could the fashion house call it?

Jane Birkin asks Hermès to rename bag

The star was shocked by a Peta investigation into the exotic skins trade
10 best waterproof mascaras

Whatever the weather: 10 best waterproof mascaras

We found lash-enhancing beauties that won’t budge no matter what you throw at them
Diego Costa biography: Chelsea striker's route to the top - from those who shared his journey

Diego Costa: I go to war. You come with me...

Chelsea's rampaging striker had to fight his way from a poor city in Brazil to life at the top of the Premier League. A new book speaks to those who shared his journey
Ashes 2015: England show the mettle to strike back hard in third Test

England show the mettle to strike back hard in third Test

The biggest problem facing them in Birmingham was the recovery of the zeitgeist that drained so quickly under the weight of Australian runs at Lord's, says Kevin Garside
Women's Open 2015: Charley Hull - 'I know I'm a good golfer but I'm also just a person'

Charley Hull: 'I know I'm a good golfer but I'm also just a person'

British teen keeps her feet on ground ahead of Women's Open
Turkey's conflict with Kurdish guerrillas in Iraq can benefit Isis in Syria

Turkey's conflict with Kurdish guerrillas in Iraq can benefit Isis in Syria

Turkish President Erdogan could benefit politically from the targeting of the PKK, says Patrick Cockburn
Yvette Cooper: Our choice is years of Tory rule under Jeremy Corbyn or a return to a Labour government

Our choice is years of Tory rule under Corbyn or a return to a Labour government

Yvette Cooper urged Labour members to 'get serious' about the next general election rather than become 'a protest movement'