By Katie Ghose
Chair, Yes to Fairer Votes
Over the weekend, and throughout today, more than 40 local groups saying “Yes to Fairer Votes” around the UK will be holding streets stalls to coincide with Valentine’s Day.
Their message is to exhort people to “follow their heart,” explaining how our current voting system forces people to vote to stop the candidates they don’t want, instead of supporting the candidates they really believe in.
It is a lighthearted way to make a deadly serious point – that in an era of increasing political pluralism and diversity of views, our voting system is no longer fit for purpose.
Experience in the US shows how upgrading to the alternative vote (AV) system can profoundly change the nature of election campaigns and help make politics a more welcoming place for women.
On its own a switch to AV won’t put more women in parliament overnight. Much more will need to be done to get parties to select more female candidates and to make parliament a more welcoming place for women and men from all backgrounds.
But upgrading to AV will profoundly change the nature of election campaigns.
To see what I mean, we should look to the US. There is a steadily growing movement to adopt AV (known there as Instant Runoff Voting) in the States, mainly at a local and district level.
Oakland in California held its first mayoral election using AV last November and the difference it made was striking.
The favoured, establishment candidate Don Perata was beaten by Jean Quan, the first Asian American female mayor.
If the election had been run using first past the post, Perata would have won comfortably even though most people in the city didn’t actually want him.
But it isn’t just the result that is worth noting here, it is the way Jean Quan won. With AV, candidates can’t rely on their core supporter base to win them the election: they have to reach out and address the issues of a much wider range of people.
Quan’s strength was being a community organiser with deep roots in the area she was seeking to represent. She worked her socks off forming close alliances with residents’ associations and civic society organisations attending, for example more than 200 house parties alone.
Meanwhile Perata just threw money at the situation, spending just under $1m dollars (Quan only spent $380,000). This strategy almost worked for him but ultimately, no amount of money could make up for the authenticity and commitment to public service that Quan was able to demonstrate.
And that, at its heart, is what we in Yes to Fairer Votes are trying to achieve.
We’re a people’s campaign; of course we’re grateful to the forward-looking politicians who support us but it is the voices of people who matter in this campaign.
By contrast, the “no” campaign has been rolling out their political ‘big beasts’ and trying to divert attention away from the failings of the current system.
The UK’s current system of First Past the Post (FPTP) does not reflect the world we all live in. It might have worked in the 1950s when more than 90 per cent of the population voted for just two parties but it is not fit for purpose in the way we vote now.
In the last election just 65 % voted for the big two and indeed the combined vote for the three big parties was the lowest it has ever been.
The Alternative Vote builds on the positive features of FPTP, like the link between one MP and their constituency. Ballot papers will look ostensibly the same.
The difference is that voters will have the option of ranking candidates in numerical order. If no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, the least popular candidates are progressively excluded until someone does or until there are no further votes to transfer.
Voting reform is typically seen as an issue of interest to men more than women (although Emmeline Pankhurst might well disagree!).
I am proud then that women are active at all levels of our campaign, leading local groups, organising our phonebanks and taking charge at a regional level.
Experienced community organiser Jane Thomas is running our operation in Yorkshire and the Humber while our operation in North and East London is being overseen by Deborah Grayson and Becky Luff on a jobshare, who have a background in the environmental movement.
This is a really crucial – and exciting – campaign to be involved in. It’s the chance to make a little bit of history. I hope you join the millions of women voting ‘Yes’ on referendum day.
More importantly, I hope you get involved and have your say.













explaining how our current voting system forces people to vote to stop the candidates they don’t want, instead of supporting the candidates they really believe in.
Of course, it does no such thing. If people choose to vote dishonestly (that is, against their top choice) because it’s more important to them to stop an undesirable candidate than elect a desirable candidate, that’s entirely their decision.
No-one is forced to vote against their top choice.
Well listen to my story and see what you think. I went to vote last year and wanted the Green candidate, he was independant, intelligent and local. However on the day, I was one second away from not voting at all because it’s a safe Lib Dem seat. I did put my vote in the box, and didn’t vote for someone who was polling better and could challenge because I had one vote. I did this out of principle, and against all logic, and that made me angry about how basic our system is. To make it worse, I was then represented by a man who, according to that system, 30509 people or 61% voted against, and we all threw away our votes.
Newspapers print full maps showing who you should vote for so you can screw the party that you don’t want to win. If your saying that nobody frog-marches you to the polls to vote for a party that you don’t want then you’re right, but the current system does mean that a trick of geography might give you no choice but to give full support for a candidate and give an important job to someone who may not deserve it. Alternative Vote actually counts these tactical votes and the MP knows how they won and will have to work to keep those transferred vote.
And that’s just one of the deceptions and outright lies in the article. I can’t be bothered with the rest.