The Alternative Vote ticks all the boxes.

I first met the Alternative Vote system at College many years ago, and my instant reaction was “Why don’t we use that for Parliament?” It immediately struck me as the fairest and simplest way to elect one person to represent a constituency.

What are we trying to do when we elect a member of Parliament? I believe we are trying to find the candidate who will represent the views of the highest number of constituents as possible. But what happens now? We have loads of people running for election, as well as the main parties we have the Monster Raving Loony Party, Church of the Militant Elvis, New Millennium Bean Party, and others who have no expectation of being elected (I hesitate to list UKIP, the Greens, and the BNP because of their recent successes). All they do is draw votes away from the main candidates without anyone knowing whom those voters would be comfortable having as their representative. And so most MPs get elected on a minority vote. I find that unsatisfactory in a democracy where the view of the majority should hold sway, and a majority means more than half.

Better is the way the French used to elect their president. Everyone goes to the polls and votes for the many candidates, the votes are counted and those candidates who are clearly not going to be President are thrown out and a new election held. So everyone votes again, of course most people vote for the same candidate as they did last time, but those who voted for the lesser candidates have to choose someone else, or not vote. The votes are counted and it all happens again. They could go back time after time at great expense and waste of time. In practice, nowadays the field normally gets narrowed to two candidates for the second vote because those who got enough votes to stay in but can see that they won’t win normally back off. However, here is the principle of the alternative vote.

To save money and time the AV system just asks “If the guy you put first gets thrown out whom would vote for in a second round?”, and third round, etc. Now we could of course, after each round, chuck all the voting papers back in the ballot box and count them all again, just modifying those that have first votes for the rejected candidates. That way everyone’s votes get counted the same number of times and no one gets more votes than anyone else (John Reid take note). However that would waste time because we have already counted most of them so we just write the number down again, and add on the reallocated votes by counting those.

This way in the end the person who is elected will have the support of the majority of those who have votes effective for the last round. I say that because in the old French system people who didn’t come back to vote in the latter rounds didn't get counted, I mean how can you count someone who doesn’t vote?

The arguments I hear against AV sound specious to me. John Reid’s argument that some people get more than one vote is specious, because in effect everyone's vote counts in every round – and that’s fair. Those MPs who say it is too complicated astound me because if they think the British Public can’t get their head round such a simple question as “If that person wasn’t standing whom would you vote for?” they must have a very low opinion of us. And those arguing that holding the referendum is so expensive we should vote for First Past the Post just don’t realize that the money has already been spent.

The only reason I can understand that someone might vote against AV is because they think that their team will lose out. In my opinion it is why David Cameron is against it. He says he has a gut feel that it is wrong - David, that feeling in your gut is that your feel sick at the thought of losing out. And it is generally considered that the Conservatives will lose out because of the “natural” closeness of Labour and the Lib Dems. However this is not clear, and at least one survey has shown that the Conservatives may well do better. The problem with judging the effect is that no one has done exit polls on what the second choices were, so we just don’t know.

But one thing we do know is that in a democracy the view of the majority should hold sway and AV will seek out the majority view.

And the other thing we know is that whenever a party loses out in an election it address the issues that made them less popular and adapts to provide the people with a better option next time – and that is what we want - politicians trying hard to provide the government we want.

The facts are that the AV system is simple to understand, simple to count, and delivers MPs who have to appeal to the majority of their constituents. And that ticks all the boxes for electing a single person to represent a constituency.

Best Wishes and Happy Voting

Adrian

Which way up will you fly your flag?

When William and Kate marry next weekend you can be sure that a lot of people will be waving or flying Union flags. And many will be flown upside down. Do you know which way up our national flag should be flown?

Look at the corner of the flag that is at the top next to the pole. Running into the corner are two white bands separated by a red band. The upper white band should be broader than the one below the red band, if it is narrower then the flag is upside down.  Wikipedia has a good picture here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Flag#Flying.

It is a common mistake to make particularly if you buy the flag off a street vendor. The flags sold on the streets and in souvenir shops are mostly made in China, and the Chinese don't know which way up to stick the flag on the pole. This was very evident when Prince William's father married Camila, about one third of the people on the pavements were flying upside down flags, most of them were probably bought on the day from a street vendor cashing in on the day. There will be lots of vendors selling flags for William's wedding, so don't be caught out yourself.

It's Upside Down, Sarah

There have been some classic examples in recent years of people getting this wrong. Peter Mandelson proudly signed a trade agreement with Wen Jiaboa of China in front of an upside down flag. Sarah Connelly flew one upside down as she sang Rule Britannia on the last night of the Proms in 2009. And more recently, Dr Brian Cox, in Wonders of the Universe, stuck a Union Flag on the top of a sand castle which had one side the wrong way up and the other side the right way. So if you do make a wally on yourself of the wedding day, you'll be in good company.

Some readers will be questioning why I call it the "Union Flag" rather than the "Union Jack". The only time a flag can be called a jack is when it is flown on the jackstaff of a ship (the flag pole at the very front of the ship) . Only ships of the Royal Navy may fly the Union Jack, and then only in harbour, at anchor or when dressed overall for an occasion such as the Queen’s birthday. For example HMS Cumberland was flying the Union Jack in Benghazi harbour in Libya recently. Occasionally you will see a vessel flying the "Pilot Jack" which is a union flag with a white border, the best example of this is the Mersey Ferry.  It is illegal for ships other than the Royal Navy to fly the Union Flag, but they may fly the Pilot Jack.

Another a bit of flag etiquette for you is that a flag flown at half mast should not be half way down the pole.  It should be hoisted to the top and then lowered just over one flag’s height to allow for the “invisible flag of death”, which signifies death’s presence, to fly above it.  However the Flag Institute has now decreed that a flag at half mast should be flown at two thirds mast, so you'll probably never see it done properly now.

Best Wishes

Adrian