ARGUMENTS about the controversial proposition to impose the change to the AV system on the nation for future parliamentary elections grows more shrill with every passing day.
Prominent public figures descend to increasingly virulent language in support of their own vested interest-driven preference.
It seems to me that there are several aspects of the discussion which have not been highlighted at all, that may be at least as relevant as any of those more vigorously discussed.
l The multiple choice system will inevitably result in a significant portion of the electorate having their vote cast in favour of a candidate they expressly did not want.
l The proposed system does not require a vote for every candidate on the ballot. Since in our parliamentary elections we vote for a candidate or party member promoting policies we prefer. For our preference to be coerced into voting for a member of a party representing policies we do not want would be blatantly unfair.
l The assertion occurs that AV saves people from having a ‘wasted’ vote. Is this remark not patently nonsensical? It implies the only ‘useful’ vote is that cast for the winner; surely such a view is the very antithesis of democracy. In reality the only wasted votes are those not used.
In reality I suspect this is all a storm in a teacup. The long-suffering electorate will ultimately soldier on regardless of the outcome.
Those currently making all the noise will certainly not end up as the ‘empty vessels’ of the old saying and will continue living ‘high on the hog’, while the population at large makes the best they can manage of whatever outcome emerges.