Catch21 - Our Charity ArmCatch21 is a charitable production company set up in 2005 which trains young people to make videos and engage with their communities.Catch Creative - Our Video Production ArmCatch Creative offers a complete video production service, from Conception to Distribution.Catch EngagementCatch Engagement is the new video interaction platform from Catch21 which allows you to run a campaign using both user generated films as well as professionally shot ones which are displayed via Video 'Walls'. Catch Engagement is all about using films to build an online community - welcome to the future of video.

We shoot cutting edge videos and provide a forum to give people a voice.
Engagement. Discussion. Empowerment.

All content featured on our charity site is produced by young volunteers with the support and mentoring of our professional production team.

Blog No To AV

Published on April 15th, 2011 | by Adam Fowles
Image ©


Say No to AV – The ‘Miserable Little Compromise’

No To AV


Why say No to AV? It comes down to three simple reasons: (1) It is confusing and unfair (2) It is expensive and (3) It has been shunned by the very patrons who attempt to win a yes vote from us.

For democracy to be successful it must be understood, to be clear and concise, with no ambiguity. It is bounding with complexities, making it difficult to understand and in turn it becomes tough for voters to identify with their representatives, or to take parliament seriously. The AV system runs in such a manner that a candidate that comes second or third can win, and eliminate the candidate who came first, meaning we have little control over who ends up running our country. Confused yet? I know I am.

Introducing AV in the UK will also cost – a lot. We can expect figures of around 250 million pounds to be thrown away on campaigns aimed at educating voters on AV, as well as local council spends on snazzy new electronic vote counting machines. In a time cuts to primary services such as schools and hospitals are rife, and with families struggling with day to day expenses, can taxpayers really afford to shell out for the mayhem that is the AV voting system? I would say – quite definitely not.

The system has been bashed in the past it’s now dedicated cheerleaders. Once described by Nick Clegg as a ‘miserable little compromise thrashed out by the Labour Party’ only last year, and not regarded as ‘suitable for the election of a representative body’ by its main enthusiast the Electoral Reform Society back in 2002 – the system is denounced by those trying to sell it to us.

I firmly believe that a move towards AV would be a step backwards for British democracy. Vote no on the 5th of May, or risk being puzzled, fleeced, misrepresented or not represented at all.

Don’t agree with this #no2AV response? Maybe you agree with our #yes2AV blog from yesterday?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

About the Author

  • invertedquestionmark

    I was planning to vote against AV – until I saw the "he needs armoured vests, not AV" banners. If the people who pay for these adds are against AV, then it cannot be that bad.

    • franklyavalon

      Would these be the same armoured vests that Hague has announced are being shipped out to the Libyan Rebels (with a free satellite phone)? Do not be fooled by any heartwrenching propaganda regarding AV, long and short of it is that under AV there will ALWAYS be a LibLabConalition just as they want it to be.

  • Jon

    I was planning on writing a proper comment, but then I saw what the hilariously named bloke above had written and thought I'd say something like…

    I was really into AV until I saw the Nick Griffin posters and I thought, 'if Yes to AV want to put the BNP all over their ad campaign, i'll probably vote no'

    • Meg

      Doh ! So you want to join Nick in voting no then??

  • When will the lies end? It will not cost £250 million for AV, there is no need for vote counting machines, it can easily be done by hand, people do not need to be educated, it's a simple case of rank your candidates in order of preference (1, 2, 3, etc, so it ain't difficult to understand), ranking as many or as few candidates as you please. If at the count of first preferences a candidate has at least 50% of the overall vote, they win. If not the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, second preferences are then added to the other candidates, this continues until a candidate has 50%, or until there is only one candidate left. The latter of the two situations is highly unlikely.

    • Francis

      Here here. I am fed up of hearing the no campaign using the argument of you not having to get 50% of the vote when under the system they advocate this happens alot, and in two thirds of constituencies! At least AV gives you a chance to have your say, unlike FPTP where you can either vote for the party you like and have a vote which counts for nothing, or vote for the party you can stand making them think they have more support than they do.

    • invertedquestionmark

      I agree that it is not hard to understand, that it does not have to cost a lot and that there is no need for counting machines. However, this does not mean that they will use the opportunity to spend a lot of tax money for a huge educational campaign and for some private firm's contract for manufacturing and servicing the machines.

      For the record – I do support AV, I just do not doubt it that money will be wasted.

  • Richy

    Same old tired lies from the extremist alliance calling themselves no2av. AV is easy to understand, it is free and it is a clear improvement on the current system.

  • franklyavalon

    Yesterday Ca Moron took the next step in tricking the electorate into voting YES to AV. The media are falsely reporting two things,
    1: They say that a yes vote for AV is a good thing for the BNP.
    2: They are saying that Ca Moron is against AV.

    Firstly the British National Party are against the Alternative Voting System, it is (as the article suggests) confusing, expensive and in my words not the authors undemocratic. It will lead to a one party LibLabCon alliance with no choice but the same old political elite bleeding the taxpayers dry. They are saying that BNP want AV in order to make voters who are starting to support and look at the BNP favourably vote yes.

    Secondly: Ca Moron wants AV, for the reasons in the above comment.

    Yesterday Ca Moron played a very devious and dishonest trick on the electorate with his speech against immigration. That speech was designed to cause outrage and anger, designed to change minds of people by making them so angry at his bare faced lies that they will vote against the tories on May the 5th (forget LimpDems, they are history). Ca Moron does not care whether Labour control the majority of councils in England, all that matters is that he and Clegg stay in westminster to channel money out of England and regulations into England, then they will be handed to the Labour councils to enforce and fine anyone breaking these regulations. The deviously clever reason for his speech is the fact that the referendum for AV is being held on the same day as the local elections and therefore the confused electorate guided by the BBC, Daily Rags and taxpayer funded advert propaganda will vent their anger and outrage by voting against the tories and voting yes to AV believing that they have stuck a finger up at Ca Moron.
    Oh and finally, it was Gorgon Broon who put the AV voting system through the lords who o.k'd that it be passed to parliament, where lo and behold it was agreed by the toughgobblers that it would be jolly good wheeze to fool the electorate into changing the face of democracy in Britain (and get them to vote on changes to their soveriegnty without them realising they were doing so), google gordon browns speech when he announced the AV referendum.

  • Might I add that the cost of an election under FPTP costs £120 million. It's not an Ideal system and most who want the system would rather have PR (Single Transferable Vote) but it's a step in the right direction, it's replacing a tired, old and undemocratic system, with one that although isn't the best, is still many times better than FPTP. If AV is given the go-ahead, I can see this country electing a government using Single Transferable Vote in the not too distant future.

  • The author suggests 'Democracy should be understood…' and yet the majority of people in the UK believe that their ballot paper goes towards a national vote when in reality it is discarded at the local level.
    If the conservatives care so much about education why are they threatening to cutting citizenship classes
    which act as a perfect arena for informing citizens on how our CURRENT system works never mind AV.

  • Meg


    "Confused yet? I know I am."

    How can you fail to understand. You need to talk to the Conservative party as they use AV to elect their leaders.

    Er… come to think of it, why don't they use FPTP? Oh yes I see, that wouldn't be fair!

  • Meg

    Another quote from Amy… "misrepresented or not represented at all"

    Amy please explain to me how all the voters in a constituency are fairly represented in FPTP?

    At least with AV a candidate has to get 50% of the vote before they can be called the winner, and that will be true in all constituencies which seems fair to me. Same goal posts everywhere!

  • Right first things first…I am Voting NO TO AV!

    One of the main reasons why I will be voting this way is I do not want to see my local representative being a Coalition Government, look at the mess we as the UK are currently in with a current coalition. Also I want to vote for the PARTY I want to WIN not have to start thinking strategically about oh If they don't win then who don't I want in. ONE CROSS, ONE VOTE for ONE CANDIDATE!

    Secondly in marginal seats there are going to a be a lot candidates who make sure they appeal to EVERYONE and promise everything! Which once in power will not follow through with.

    We should just keep first past the post, check out the No to AV Video

    Please people lets not be stupid and lets all vote NO to AV

  • Pingback: The Unfounded Criticisms of AV & The ‘Miserable Compromise’ Argument « The Logical Conclusion()

  • Pingback: i-MP Zac Goldsmith | Catch21 Productions()

  • Pingback: Was the vote on AV worth it? | Catch21 Productions()

  • obviously like your web-site but you have to check the spelling on quite a few of your posts. Several of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very troublesome to inform the reality nevertheless I’ll surely come again again.

Back to Top ↑