And I’m not talking about the King James bible, also known as the Authorised Version. I have to say that I’m struggling at the moment to decide whether to vote for or against the new voting system called Alternative Vote. And most people I speak to locally are completely indifferent.
I asked the Twitterverse which way a Christian should vote on the matter and the main response I got was that the bible’s only recommended system of election (apart from the Lord’s election of his people, obvs) is by lot (cf Acts 1v26 – for the selection of Matthias as an apostle to replace Judas). Selection by lottery is a system which leaves the choice to God and teaches his people to pray, although I’m not aware of any churches which use that system for selecting their church council these days.
The Christian Institute has a paper on AV which is fairly non-committal – it highlights the issues and also links to Christians and others for and against. Christian bloggers who have posted include John Richardson and Peter Kirk – both in the Yes camp.
My current concerns are fairness – is AV fairer than the existing First Past the Post system? And also cost – will a new system involve the country in extra expense for advertising, teaching and counting? And is anyone bothered enough about it to implement a new system? I’ve not met anyone locally yet who is passionately convinced that AV should be brought in for the good of the country.
Tonight I read a helpful article in the New Scientist which mentions a system that is claimed to be ‘an alternative, “perfect” system’, which actually sounds more like the biblical method I mentioned above:
Maclver’s system is identical to FPTP in all but one respect. Voters in each constituency choose a single candidate, but then one voter is picked at random from each constituency and their choice determines which candidate gets elected. The random element means the system isn’t covered by Arrow’s theorem.
It sounds horribly unfair but it would actually produce results that are more proportional to the views of the country as a whole, argues MacIver, as it is simply a random sampling of the population. So if a party has 20% of the national vote, it should end up with roughly 20% of the seats in parliament.
It turns out Maclver’s idea isn’t a new one – the system is known as a random ballot. But it isn’t one of the choices being offered to the UK public.
I liked the way the New Scientist summarises the dilemma for all of us who want to cast a vote in this referendum next week:
Do you want a system that picks a winner with strong support from a minority of voters (FPTP) or one where the leading candidate is vaguely liked by a majority of people (AV)? No amount of equations can help you reach an answer.
And as a Christian the response to the final dilemma has got to be prayer. So that’s what I’m planning to do. How about you?
The Vicar's Wife 
I’ve been thinking a bit more about this and it seems to me that FPTP is like Strictly – you vote for the person you want; while AV is more like Big Brother – you vote for the person you don’t want. Obviously you don’t just vote for the person you don’t want but you can effectively do so by putting them at the bottom of your list. And the overall effect is to make sure that you end up with the candidate who is least not-wanted rather than the one most wanted. The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that I prefer FPTP because I would rather have positive voting and positive campaigning. AV seems to me to invite negative voting and negative campaigning. You can work to keep someone out of power and I don’t like that.
But FPTP encourages negative voting. Unless you are in favour of the candidate most likely to win in your constituency, under FPTP you will most likely start thinking about which other candidate is most likely to be able to defeat the favourite rather than express your true preference. With AV you do not need to do this, since you can express your second/third/fourth preferences directly instead of trying to guess what others will do.
I would never do that. I think that you should always vote for the person you actually want to win regardless of what you think the likely outcome is. How else can you make your views known? To vote negatively in FPTP is a defeatist option, whereas in AV it is simply part of the system.
The argument that’s persuaded me more than most is that AV is more likely to result in minority parties being elected.
– when you’re counting the 2nd choices, you start with the people who chose the least popular candidates. They probably haven’t gone for the mainstream parties as their 2nd choices.
Laurence, do you think it’s a good or bad thing for more minority parties to be elected? And, either way, I’m not absolutely persuaded that AV will really lead to this, to be honest.
Like which party , to vote for I am not sure that there is really a Christian answer, more minorities parties, might give more people a voice, and a hung system might encourage parties to work together instead of always fighting each other.
The cost that you mentioned will probably not be a factor, most election officials are hired at a flat rate for the job, and so a longer count will not actually incur more cost, and it seems that many parties are not bothering to advertise during elections.
We have 3 different elections in our area and not one campaign leaflet through the door or up in a window!
Who’s more apathetic, the voters or the candidates?
I’m firmly in the yes camp. AV is not PR, so doesn’t give any more power to minority parties. What it does do is allow everyone’s preference to be registered. If you support a minority party, whether Christian or the BNP, you can safely vote for them without feeling that your vote is ‘wasted’. Your support will then show up in the results. Minority parties are actually less likely to be elected, since they are unlikely to get the required 50% of votes, but politicians will get a clearer understanding of the concerns of the electorate.
@Ros – AV does not require anyone to indicate more than one preference if they don’t want to, so you can still just vote for your first choice. And FPTP encourages tactical voting, which is about as negative as you can get – “don’t vote X, or Y will get in”. With AV, if you like X, then vote X!
I am concerned that if the last election was run under the AV system – we would have had no change of leadership which was not what the majority of people wanted.
Have just come across this paper which is the most useful thing I’ve read in terms of the potential impact of AV (positive and negative).
I don’t accept the argument as AV helping the BNP or other extremist views as you could not make any mark against their candidate so there would be no danger of your vote transferring to them
Victoria Derbyshire’s experiment on 5Live (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00g1ctg#emp) did a mock election in which exactly the same person won, but just with a bigger share of the vote. I did see a website that compares FPTP and AV for your constituency and it would make absolutely no difference for the West Bromwich West constituency (in which I live) anyway. (Labour won with 44% of the vote in 2010, and I would imagine they’d have got the other 6% of the vote under AV easily).
Based on the paper Ros identifies, it would appear that a switch to AV would not have changed the governing party in any of the general elections since 1983. The main change seems to be the amount of seats the LibDems would have won (as they would have replaced the Conservative Party as the official opposition in 1997).
I’m fine with the fact we have a coalition government at present, but I wouldn’t want to have one too regularly. I like the idea of knowing what a government is going to do before an election and giving them a mandate to do it.
It would therefore seem logical to base your decision on how you view the LibDems. If you want them to have more power in the political system, vote yes, if not vote no.
At some point before I vote on May 5, I’ll make up my mind
I agree with Ros. AV has spread no further than Australia, somewhere else and PNG (where Tok Pisin, the link language, is derived from Australian vernacular). They may well say AV b’long bugerap.
AV is a step in the wrong direction.
It is a step backwards and not forwards.
Is is unfair.
It is costly.
It will lead to weak governments and more coalitions.
Religion shouldnt get involved in Politics and vice-vers, even then, there is nothing ‘Christian’ about AV or FPTP for that matter.
Vote NO to AV.
@Sarandip, I’m afraid I totally disagree that faith & politics can be separated. Christianity informs how I relate to others in every sphere of life. But I’m not ‘religious’ – I have a relationship with Jesus, which is something completely different.
The bible may not speak about electoral systems but it informs how I should live in every area of my life.
As a Christian, I never vote tactically, because I feel it would be wrong to vote for someone I prefer rather than someone I want most – it feels a little like lying. So AV might work better for me. But because not everyone is like that, I might vote no to AV because I think for the majority of the country, a FPTP system would work out better.
What makes AV costly? Obviously, as a Christian, I am concerned that every resource that God has given us should be used wisely and not wasted, including tax money.
I agree with Chris in that I don’t mind having a coalition government – I think it makes people work together for the good of the country not the party. I think collaboration, where people have to listen to one another and make sacrifices, is a Christian concept.
Ok fair enough.
Your post is well and true and I completely respect and understand what you say.
I think we both may have misunderstood each other. I know that Politics and Religion (in some areas) cant be separated, but I also know that it can be seperated.
All Im saying is that is sure is tricky when you mix Politics and Religion. But, come on, this is AV we are on about. So, in my opinion, Religion doesnt really come into it but I do see where you are coming from.
My religion informs me on how I should live my life too, but when Im doing something Political its either the case that I dont let Religion get in the way of what I say or I let Religion influence what I say.
Religion only influences my Politics when we are talking about Life, Death, Abortion and LGBT stuff etc.
Under FPTP and AV you can vote tactically. Under AV a Labour voter would put a 1 by Labour, a 2 by the LibDem and a 3 by Tory. A Tory voter would vote the reverse. A LibDem would vote as follows: LibDem 1, Lab (in most cases) 2 and Tory 3. This is a perfect demonstration of voting tactically.
AV is costly because of the issues you listed in a twitter post. The referendum itself is costing the country £250million and not forgetting all the costs in counting the votes in the referendum and subsequent elections.
Coalitions dont work for the greater good, they only work for themselves. Backroom deals etc. I know for well, that the current Coalition is hardly whats best for the country at the moment. The Con+LibDem is wrecking the country right in front of our eyes.
I don’t believe there is a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way for Christians to vote in this referendum, or in any election for that matter (with the notable exception of not voting for parties with rascist or other unsavoury policies). However I do strongly believe that everyone, including Christians, should vote.