Most people admit there should be no theological reflection on how we might vote in the referendum on the Alternative Vote on the 5th May. It is a matter of political not theological preference. Cramner and Bartley disagree.
‘There is a strong theological and ethical rationale for voting for reform. The Christian bias toward the vulnerable, the powerless, and the voiceless sits uneasily with a first-past-the-post system that favours the powerful and the vocal.’
Jonathan Bartley Yes to AV spokesperson
“Jesus Himself would be unlikely to win under AV. And if the Lord would not be elected, how many Christians might be elected to Westminster under the system? Could they ever talk about something as divisive as religion? Have a stance on abortion? Support faith schools? Utter a word on ‘gay rights’? Venture an opinion on religious liberty?”
Cramner (anonymous blogger)
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 31, 2011 at 10:52 am
Urban
Cramner’s argument is simply ridiculous.
I agree with Jonathan, as Christians we have a responsibility to stand up for the voiceless. AV will give me voice to the voiceless!
March 31, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Roger Steer
Jesus would certainly vote against AV since it is (1) unfair (supporters of extreme parties would have their votes counted many times) (2) doesn’t work (since a person who finishes third could be elected) (3) is expensive (4) is descredited and only used by 3 countries 2 of which want to get rid of it and (5) no sensible person wants it.
March 31, 2011 at 4:49 pm
sunil
Wow Roger you have accused a lot of people of being not ‘sensible.’ Too much binary thinking. Wouldn’t Jesus be for benevolent monarchy?
But in terms of the debate the No2Av have been far more nasty and sneering and have much more established power behind them. So Jesus would go for Yes2AV.
March 31, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Andy
Roger, pack of nonsense. FPTP is singularly undemocratic and encourages tactical voting in marginals (to keep the wrong people out). It is anything but expensive (look at Northern Ireland which preserves perfectly efficient hand-counting for its STV elections).
We have no business treating a candidate who has been opposed by over 50% of the actual voters as the proper representative for the area. That is not democratic – what happens if those who voted for the third-placed candidate and beyond would rather have had the second-placed candidate than the first-placed candidate? How many voters for the first-placed candidate only voted that way to stop the second-placed candidate and really wanted the third-placed candidate?
AV ensures that no-one can be elected without the consent of at least 50% of the election, and no-one gets more than one vote – rather, those who vote for minority candidates are asked who would get their vote if their candidate hadn’t been standing, without having to go to the bother of a second ballot, as happened in the Conservative party leadership election, where David Cameron came second in the first round, and first in the second round. If the Conservatives had used the system they want for Parliament to elect their leader, David Cameron would never have been Prime Minister.
It’s not PR, but if we reject AV it will be deemed to be support for the status quo, rather than a rejection of an option inadequate for democracy.
In fact, the only valid argument against AV that I have seen is that it is not proportional. All the other arguments I have seen have been specious (strong government, confusion for voters) or outright lies (the fictitious voting machines, multiple votes, likelihood of coalition)
Jesus would never have been elected under either AV or FPTP. It’s doubtful he would have been elected under any form of PR, because he shook people up and would have been too unpopular.
April 1, 2011 at 7:31 am
Roger Steer
One problem with AV is that people with a strong, forceful message who want, like Jesus, (in Andy’s words) to ‘shake people up’ would be tempted to water down their message in order not to offend those whose second, third and fourth preference votes they also want to gain.
April 1, 2011 at 9:40 am
Philip Crown
Of course Jesus would never have been voted in, because he never would have stood. Jesus was a prophet, not a seasoned politician. He stirred up, wound up, and stood up. He inspired and provoked, by shouting from the sidelines. Our MPs aren’t supposed to be shaking things up their supposed to be the steady voice of the people. The role of the church is to be the prophet, like Jesus we must change and challenge the voice of the people.
and Roger we’re not supposed to be making things easier for our MPs, we’re supposed to be making it more difficult. Strong leadership isn’t about sticking to one issue it’s about being honest and open, it’s about looking out for the least and the minority as well as the majority. Not easier but more democractic surely. I’m a yes.
April 1, 2011 at 9:57 am
Roger Steer
In voting No to AV, my thinking will be in line with Winston Churchill who, in 1931, described AV as taking account of ‘the most worthless votes of the most worthless candidates’; Nick Clegg who, before the 2010 general election, described AV as ‘a miserable little compromise’; and the Electoral Reform Society itself which said it did ‘not regard it as suitable for the election of a representative body, e.g. a parliament’.
The Jenkins Report on Voting Systems, which was published in October 1998, warned that elections fought under AV would either wildly increase the majority of the winning party (e.g. Labour in 1997, the Tories in the 1980s) or create hung parliaments by giving the balance of power to the third party. I don’t think that Jesus would have been happy with such distortions and unfairnesses.