X is for eXpensive (!)
AV will cost £250m! Except £82m of that is apparently the cost of holding the referendum, which would be incurred even if there is a No vote. And £130m of that is on buying voter counting machines. They donít use them in Australia, which uses AV, but DO use them in America, which uses FPTP.
The vote counter machines are meant to allow for a similar number of staff to be able to complete the count in a similar amount of time. Without the machines the choices would be to allow for more time to complete the count, increase the number of staff involved, allow for more time due to human error / miscounts or any combination of these.
The pressure to have an answer before lunchtime on the Friday after a general election is partly put there by the media / public, but mainly be the world markets. This means we cannot allow for longer time (even though that is still a risk due to the predicted rise in the number of recounts per stage) so we either pay for more staff or a new system to measure the votes. Purely electronic is out, so we have to have counting machines ...
£130m is the suggested figure for the machines, and there has been money put aside to cover the costs of the next election which should (with inflation) be about that amount. However, there has been no indication yet of any other costs or possible increase of existing costs due to the change in the system. Speaking with one returns officer a fortnight ago they said that would look forward to having machines in to do the work, but they seriously worry about what happens when there is a problem ... the problems with shortages of ballot papers, people not having time to vote, etc are just some of the examples which need to be sorted either way. The introduction of a new system will need some serious training and management ... and there seems to be significant scepticism if this is possible.
So, if you count for the figures of the referendum, the costs of machines, the costs of marketing / training / planning, the legal costs for challenges ... then yes, I could quite easily see it rise to £250m and even go passed it, but yes, the way the No campaign has stated some facts (and they are facts) is a typical political truth ... used to say something with a slant in a particular direction. The annoying thing is that to say that it is not going to cost more than it is at the moment, without having completed a full breakdown (and published) seems a tad strange by the Yes campaign.
The full text of the letter can be found here - Why don't Tories use FPTP to elect their own leader - Letters from Leamington Observer If the Tories used First Past the Post (FPTP) then David Davies would would have been elected leader of the Tory party.Quote:
Finally, I would like to point out that this "unfair", "discredited", "expensive" system that "doesn't work" is used by their own party to vote in members to the House of Lords, and a variant of the system (which uses multiple rounds of voting) to vote for their leader. Why don't they eat their own dog food and use FPTP themselves if it is so much better?
The AV to me is a bit like that annoying kid at school who used to play a 'best of 3' game of heads or tails with you, then when he lost he would say "nah, it was best of 5" and then "nah, it was best of 7" and so on.
So the crux of this thread is 'I should vote 'yes' because of what some bloke said on the internet' :p
Now... I don't know politics, but I know what I like.
And I don't like this... Seems kind of stupid to me. [@Hightower summed it up pretty well.]