First Past The Post (FPTP) does not elect the most popular party. It forces what should be a multi-party democracy into a two-party system. Now, I'm not saying that AV is perfect, but it is far more democratic than FPTP. Indeed, the only circumstance where FPTP is a good system to use is when there are only two parties allowed. This is because in those situations, a person can either vote one way or the other, and whoever gains the most votes must win (since they must logically have more than 50% of the vote).
The problems with FPTP start to form when more than two parties are allowed. Suppose there are three parties, A, B, and C. On election day, the results are counted like so:
A: 35%
B: 33%
C: 32%
Under FPTP, the party with the most votes wins. For simplicities sake, let's say that the election above is for a single voting district, with each party having a single candidate representing them. So, the clear winner is party A's candidate under FPTP. But hang on, 65% of the district voted against them! This is the main problem with FPTP; it lets a minority win the election.
To really see how unfair this is, take this example further and suppose there are 20 parties in the race. Party A gets 6% of the vote, and the other 94% is divided up amongst the 19 other parties equally (so each party gets 4.95% of the vote). Party A is still the winner...with only 6% of the vote. That isn't democracy...that's absurd. FPTP's solution to this problem is to force parties to quit and urge their supporters to vote for other candidates, which is why so many countries that use FPTP effectively have a two party system (the UK's Liberal Democrats are hanging on by a thread; give them a few decades and I think they'll disappear completely).
AV sorts out this problem by ensuring that no votes are wasted. You can rank all the candidates in order of preference, or a subset of them, or only one if you like. If a candidate wins over 50% of the vote in the initial count, they are elected to office. If they do not, then the candidate with the least amount of votes is eliminated, and their votes are counted again, but the "second preference" vote is counted instead, and distributed amongst the remaining candidates. This process repeats until either one of the remaining candidates has over 50% of the vote (which must happen at some point, since eventually the list is reduced to two candidates).
My argument can be summed up better by CPG Grey; his videos on the subject are here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Of course, AV would be a first step in voting reform. Gerrymandering must also be addressed. If you still think AV is a terrible system, ask yourself this question: Why do all the three main parties use a form of AV to elect their party leaders?
Also, for the sake of openess, I voted Conservative in the last election, and I voted for AV, despite my party voting against it. As I said before, I don't care for party politics; if something makes voting fairer whilst reducing the number of my party's elected officials, it simply means they weren't supposed to be there in the first place. I think AV would force the two main parties to actually address issues rather than depending on "safe" seats to get elected.
I also think that the Lib Dems are a great third party to have, since they often bring completely new ideas to the table. It would be a damn shame if they were eradicated from the political spectrum.
The problems with FPTP start to form when more than two parties are allowed. Suppose there are three parties, A, B, and C. On election day, the results are counted like so:
A: 35%
B: 33%
C: 32%
Under FPTP, the party with the most votes wins. For simplicities sake, let's say that the election above is for a single voting district, with each party having a single candidate representing them. So, the clear winner is party A's candidate under FPTP. But hang on, 65% of the district voted against them! This is the main problem with FPTP; it lets a minority win the election.
To really see how unfair this is, take this example further and suppose there are 20 parties in the race. Party A gets 6% of the vote, and the other 94% is divided up amongst the 19 other parties equally (so each party gets 4.95% of the vote). Party A is still the winner...with only 6% of the vote. That isn't democracy...that's absurd. FPTP's solution to this problem is to force parties to quit and urge their supporters to vote for other candidates, which is why so many countries that use FPTP effectively have a two party system (the UK's Liberal Democrats are hanging on by a thread; give them a few decades and I think they'll disappear completely).
AV sorts out this problem by ensuring that no votes are wasted. You can rank all the candidates in order of preference, or a subset of them, or only one if you like. If a candidate wins over 50% of the vote in the initial count, they are elected to office. If they do not, then the candidate with the least amount of votes is eliminated, and their votes are counted again, but the "second preference" vote is counted instead, and distributed amongst the remaining candidates. This process repeats until either one of the remaining candidates has over 50% of the vote (which must happen at some point, since eventually the list is reduced to two candidates).
My argument can be summed up better by CPG Grey; his videos on the subject are here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Of course, AV would be a first step in voting reform. Gerrymandering must also be addressed. If you still think AV is a terrible system, ask yourself this question: Why do all the three main parties use a form of AV to elect their party leaders?
Also, for the sake of openess, I voted Conservative in the last election, and I voted for AV, despite my party voting against it. As I said before, I don't care for party politics; if something makes voting fairer whilst reducing the number of my party's elected officials, it simply means they weren't supposed to be there in the first place. I think AV would force the two main parties to actually address issues rather than depending on "safe" seats to get elected.
I also think that the Lib Dems are a great third party to have, since they often bring completely new ideas to the table. It would be a damn shame if they were eradicated from the political spectrum.
