Keep control of your democracy

You wake up, flick through the local paper and see that the person you voted for in your constituency actually got the most votes but under the new system was judged to have come third.

Instead, your new MP is the guy who actually came second.

And then you turn on your television and you see Gordon Brown on the steps of Downing Street. But he’s not making his resignation speech. He’s saying Her Majesty has asked him to form a new government because he’s managed to cobble together a coalition of second choices.

Yes, that’s right. Five more years of Gordon Brown. It sounds like a nightmare. But if the last election had been conducted under AV, that’s what could have happened.

That’s why there’s so much more at stake in next month’s referendum than just how we vote at elections. At stake is how our democracy works – the power you have over politicians and your control over who wins and who loses.

And the danger is that if this goes through, we could do permanent damage to our political system. Don’t just take my word for it. Winston Churchill once called AV “the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal” voting system. It means that elections “will be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates”. I’m not going to argue with him. Are you?

And just in case you still aren’t convinced, look at who’s pushing the Yes campaign. You guessed it: many of the same people who called for the euro are now trying to meddle with our democracy.

Spin doctors such as Peter Mandelson. Politicians such as Neil Kinnock, who failed to win under our tried and tested system and so now want to change the rules of the game.

And celebrities such as Eddie Izzard, who’s gone from fronting Yes to the euro to Yes to AV.

Well frankly, they were all wrong about the euro – and they’re just as wrong about this.

It’s wrong that, under AV, candidates who come third can win. It’s wrong that the fifth choice of some fringe voter can count as much as your first. And it’s absolutely wrong that lame-duck politicians can cling on to power when the country doesn’t want them. All these are powerful enough reasons to vote “no” to AV.

But there’s another case to be made against AV. Think about some of themost infuriating things about politics today.

I mean the things that really drive you mad. AV will make them worse.

One: you hate it when politicians don’t stick to manifesto commitments. With AV that would become more common.

Why? Because under AV, hung parliaments and coalitions would be more frequent. Now, it won’t surprise you that I think the current coalition, which came together in the national interest, is right for Britain. We have a bold and ambitious programme to get our country back on its feet. We didn’t expect a coalition – and didn’t write our manifesto thinking one might happen.

But there’s a problem if politicians start to think coalitions may start to put things in their manifestos that sound good but they can’t deliver, because they know that in a coalition they will not be made to answer for them. That undermines accountability and is not right.

Two: you hate boring MPs who don’t speak their mind. But with AV, we’ll get loads more of them.

With candidates desperate to win voters’ second, third and fourth preferences, we’ll get politicians playing safe and trying to please everyone. We’ll get a situation where candidates who were not really wanted by anyone win because they were the least disliked. It will mean that those who have real convictions, who are courageous and may not say things that everyone agrees with are pushed out and those who are boring and the leas controversial limp to victory.

Imagine that: a Parliament of second choices.

Three: you hate politicians wasting your money – and believe me, AV is going to waste a lot. It’s such a confusing system that a whole machinery of bureaucracy will have to be built to explain it. You can imagine it already. A quango overseeing the whole process. Consultants drafted in to construct a message. Leaflets printed and advertising slots booked. A monumental waste of time, effort – and of course money.

And then we’ll probably have to get new, snazzy electronic voting machines to make sense of all the different outcomes and possibilities.

Estimates suggest the cost of all this will go into the tens of millions. That’s money this country hasn’t got – and that taxpayers like you shouldn’t have to stump up.

First-past-the-post is a straightforward, decisive voting system which means you can kick out governments when they’ve run out of steam.

No wonder it’s used by 2.4 billion people in the world.

AV on the other hand is a system that is so confusing, unfair and obscure that it is used only by three countries on the planet: Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea.

The arguments are clear. But right now this country is in danger of sleepwalking to this disastrous change. Those happy with the current system might feel they don’t need to botherto vote because things will staythe same.

They are wrong.

Every vote is going to count.

So if you care about our democracy – and if you want to keep the voting system that has served Britain for decades – you’ve got to get out there and save it. So on May 5, make sure you vote – and vote “no” to AV.