Humour and hijacks at AV debate

A lively debate on the topic of the national referendum took place in the Atrium on Tuesday 3 May hosted by the Debating Society and Just Vote.

Currently Britain uses the First Past The Post (FPTP) system, in which each person votes for one candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins. The referendum proposed a change to the voting system to the Alternative Vote (AV), a system in which voters rank candidates in order of preference, and if there is no clear winner, second and third choice votes are redistributed.

Ken Richie, former chief executive of the UK Electoral Reform Society, and Joseph O’Leary, Warwick student and co-organiser of the ‘Yes to Fairer Votes’ campaign at Warwick University led the debate in favour of AV. In opposition to the proposed change were Brian Tustain, deputy chairman of the Conservative Party for the West Midlands, and Mark Wallace, a political commentator and ex-campaigns director of the Taxpayers’ Alliance.

Kieran Norris of the British Youth Council and an employee in Parliament spoke firstly about the importance of civil engagement and activism. He informed the audience that Warwick is one of the most politically active universities and praised the ‘Just Vote’ campaign.

Chaired by Gareth Williams, head of Warwick Debating Society, the debate commenced with an introduction by all four speakers explaining their position on AV, followed by a heated round of questions from the audience.

Richie claimed that AV is a different and more democratic system, under which the more popular candidates will succeed. Although it does not offer proportional representation, which is what a lot of people who support AV are said to actually want, he asserted that it is “a fairer system that will convert a centre-left majority in the electorate to a centre-left majority in Westminster.”

The ‘no’ side offered the view that AV will encourage politicians to “shuffle towards the middle” and suggested that FPTP is a far more simple system.

Students quizzed the speakers on whether AV will increase voter enthusiasm and turnout, and if it will result in a wider variety of parties to choose from.

Wallace pointed out that the electoral system last year claimed that AV is not a suitable system for electing candidates to parliament, yet took a U-turn on this. Richie hotly contested his statement, saying: “AV is far more desirable than the First Past The Post system in a multi-party democracy.”

O’Leary claimed a ‘no vote’ will likely mean the end of any future reform such as proportional representation. Wallace’s arguments centre around the premise that AV discourages the vital exchange of ideas in politics. He cited the example of Australia, asserting: “AV has not changed the nature of politics.”

Also discussed were the cost implications of the referendum. The ‘yes’ side emphasised that democracy is worth spending money on, emphasising the benefits of the referendum. However, Tustain pointed to the ‘extortionate’ costs of the referendum in such an economic climate.

The debate was humorous and at times dramatic, when a UKIP candidate seized the microphone and gave a brief speech, digressing on a tangent expounding on how AV is a lost opportunity for British voters given the power of the European Union.

Speakers emphasised the importance of voting in the referendum, regardless of preference. Joseph O’Leary, co-organiser of the event, stated: “The attendance was excellent considering the time of the academic year. I think the quality of the debate was a cut above what we’ve seen on a national level and I thoroughly enjoyed it.”

One second-year Politics student Ben Jones said of the debate: “It was quite informative, if somewhat biased. I will be voting no to AV because I believe it allows the promotion of extremist parties.”

On the other hand Katie Rickard, a third-year PPE student, commented: “The debate was very informative and the yes side clearly won the intellectual and moral argument.”

_This article was last edited on 11 May 2011._