Faye Gallacher campaigned in London, in favour of STV:

To one voter, she discussed fair votes: "London is the perfect example of the deficiencies of First Past The Post. Across London I'm sure you'll know there are safe seats, seats where no matter how you vote you know that there'll be the same result: usually Tory or Labour. There are also marginals, where dozens of results can swing the entire national result. This makes most voters across the UK powerless and puts the fate of our nation in the hands of a few thousand voters in a few areas such as Nuneaton. It's time we make it clear that every vote should count across the country by voting for STV."

To another voter, she spoke about local representation: "I understand that for a lot of voters here in the UK we value local politics, that means ensuring we have members that represent our area and are able to speak up for us. I completely understand why we cherish that form of politics. But under STV, we will continue to have members that represent our local area just like we had under First Past The Post while ensuring that the results are more proportional and fair and that no votes in safe seats or marginals go to waste. STV presents a best of both worlds system."

To some voters she discussed stability: "Look, some people will scaremonger that under STV we'd have successive weak governments and no stability. We frankly know that this is not true. Multiple countries already use the STV system including Australia, New Zealand and even here in the UK where we use STV up home in Scotland. Far from cause a lack of stability, it's created a politics of consensus and nuance which has made all of these countries stronger. The United Kingdom wouldn't just survive under STV, it would prosper."

Graham Adiputera mainstreeted in the South West to build support for STV. In response to a voter who asked him what is wrong with the current system, Adiputera said:

“Under the current system, many people their votes don't matter, or that it matters less because of where they live, or that they have no chance of actually getting the representation they agree with so they have to focus on blocking representation they despise. And as someone who believes in high voter turnout, the fact is, under our current system, by design, these concerns are true in many cases. And that's awful. STV will change that, and put clear and decisive power back in the hands of every individual. 

Now, famously, my own party fares badly under our current system, First Past the Post, because our support is spread out across the nation rather than concentrated in specific areas, but our voters aren’t even the worst affected. In the last election, the Lib Dems received over 5 million votes, but only 50 seats. UKIP received over 4 million votes - but only 2 seats. The Greens received a million votes - but only 1 seat. The Greens received about 0.15% of the seats despite getting 3% of the vote. UKIP, 0.3% of the seats yet 13% of the vote. My own party, 7.6% of the seats, 16.3% of the votes. Combine these three parties, and they get more votes than either the Tories or Labour did - yet earned less than a quarter of the seats.

I don’t make these comments to make a party political point, but a democratic one - the makeup of Parliament should, broadly speaking, reflect the will of the people. Right now, it doesn’t. Our current system is complicated and messy, the resemblance of Parliament to the actual will of the people being more up to chance than anything logical. I fundamentally oppose everything UKIP stands for, but I think it is a democratic outrage that 4 million people said, yes, we want UKIP to have a voice in parliament, and they only got 0.3% of the seats out of that. If I was a UKIP backer, I’d be outraged, I’d feel alienated, I’d feel politically dispossessed - and justifiably so.

I highlight how other parties are doing to make a fundamental democratic point: it’s not just any one party or any one political position that is being undermined and left unrepresented. It’s millions of people, from across the political spectrum, in every corner of the country, who are seeing their votes wasted, their views unheard. That will continue unless we vote yes on Single Transferable Vote, and get an electoral system that truly reflects the political makeup both of individual constituencies and of the nation as a whole. Under Single Transferable Vote, your voice will matter, your vote will matter.”

Asked to explain why Single Transferable Vote, Adiputera said:

“Single Transferable Vote is, firstly, a system of proportional representation. The share of seats won by a party - or an independent candidate, STV doesn’t require party politics - will roughly match the number of votes received. Not only does it mean our democracy will actually convey the will of the people, it’ll mean that individual voters will be empowered. We’ll be putting an end to the scandal where millions of votes are wasted, where millions more are under pressure to vote tactically or hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. Right now, too, the principle of an equal vote for every person is being violated by how, in some constituencies, votes matter far more, while in other constituencies, the result is basically pre-determined.

Single Transferable Vote is simple and effective. The ballot paper is simple. Just rank candidates in order of preference. The fearmongering about it being complex is just that - fearmongering, and with a patronising tone to it.

Single Transferable Vote strengthens the link between MPs and constituents and could help rejuvenate community politics. There will be multiple MPs per constituency, representing the balance of views and the multitude of opinions in a community, giving each community multiple voices in parliament. And unlike some other proportional representation systems, STV makes it possible - if there is sufficient public support - for independents and new political groups to get a foothold and get representation.

And let’s not forget that, if this passes, we’ll also be implementing Single Transferable Vote in local government too. Local politics is as much in need of rejuvenation as our national politics. There are some councils that don’t have a single opposition councillor, some wards where local councillors face no meaningful electoral accountability, and of course millions more wasted and unequal votes at this level of government. STV’s combination of proportionality, fairness, democratic responsiveness and a strong constituency link is especially appropriate here.”

Talking about how important it is to trust the voters, Adiputera said:

“So many of the criticisms of Single Transferable Vote are based on the consequences - we’ll have instability, perpetual coalitions, extremists will get in, all that stuff. For starters, I don’t think those arguments are true. We will get more accountable, more equitable, fairer government under STV, government that is more stable and more inclusive. Political parties will have to work for every vote and every seat, and that will deliver better politics. 

But even if those arguments were true, would that be a killer blow against STV? No. Because fundamentally, I think our electoral system should place trust in the voters. It should place trust in the voters to pick politicians who can work together. We should trust the voters to make the right choices in the ballot box, to not opt for extremists or wild fringes, to decide what politicians keep their jobs or not. We shouldn’t keep an undemocratic system - where the makeup of parliament bears only passing resemblance to the makeup of views in this country - because we’re scared of what the voters will pick when their votes actually count for something. We live in a democratic country that is proud of its democratic values - and so the political class should reflect the will of the people. Right now, first-past-the-post serves as a barrier, an obtuse and incomprehensible filter, between the will of the people and the actual result of an election. FPTP denies the voters the trust to kick out bad representatives and pick their governments - STV empowers the votes with that trust. 

Under our current system, a party can win a majority of seats yet not even get a third of the vote. We’re going to end that, under Single Transferable Vote. There won’t be wasted votes. There won’t be pressure to vote tactically. The will of the British people - in its complex, pluralistic, diverse form - will be represented, rather than just the will of a lucky slice of swing voters in marginal constituencies. Our electoral system will empower, rather than distort, the views and voices of ordinary people.”

((Posted on Samantha Ryan's behalf with admin approval))

Samantha Ryan, leader of the Green Party and MP for Brighton Pavillion, hit the streets of the West Midlands to talk to voters about the STV referendum.

First, she spoke to a voter about representation.

“The largest benefit of STV is that it delivers a proportionally accurate result across the nation as a whole. Where under the current system, the Tories and Labour have been able to trade on minority support - as low as 24% of the population as a whole in 2010 - any governing party under STV would need genuine and widespread support for their policies and candidates. Why do we live in a system that allows for the tyranny of the minority, promoting a shockingly undiverse roster of politicians into Parliament? It is First Past the Post - simple as that. At the last election, my party - the Greens - took over a million votes, yet ended up with a single seat. Although I disagree with them, UKIP took over four million votes - and got just two seats. A combined five million voters had just three representatives. That is a travesty, and a betrayal of what democracy exists for: to deliver on the message you send politicians about how you want the nation to look, feel and exist.

STV would do away with this mess - or at the very least give you the option to do away with it. That is, at core, what it’s really about. Empowering you to make the decisions that only you have the right to make. I can talk about how I want a more diverse, inclusive set of politicians, that take their lead from people of all walks of life, with every person, of every background, having a say in the way the system works, but it is not my right to simply enforce it. It is similarly not the right of political parties to thrust set caricatures onto this nation, leaving us without significant representation from those that have experienced what it’s like to live at both ends of the system - not just the top. How you want Parliament to look is a decision that is yours to make. FPTP has prevented you from doing so, instead leaving parties to decide for you.”

She talked to a different voter about the potential for deadlock in the political system.

“STV does not lead to a two party state, that is for sure. And with the representation and fairness that this would create, it will undoubtedly have to come with changes to the way we expect our governments to act. One can paint such changes anyway they wish. I have no doubt that there are concerns that the introduction of STV will mirror the deadlock that we are witnessing with the creation of the Senate - but I don’t believe it will. I had - and have - deep concerns about the way the Senate works, but STV can be part of the restoring of trust in our democracy that the Senate was meant to achieve.

It is fair, however, to say that STV will lead to coalition governments - but quite frankly First Past the Post can’t do it better. We are now in our sixth year of perhaps the most politically tumultuous this side of the Second World War. Minority leadership, party politics and infighting has set back trust in British government for a generation. Let’s recalibrate and reinvigorate it, such that government works not for the spoils of a Whitehall office, but instead to deliver on what it would be representatively elected to do. I am a great believer in cooperation. STV would force that to happen. No more would you see MPs squabbling in public over technicalities, instead you’d see a positive outlook, and a commitment to come together to solve issues. That - I believe - is something to be lusted for.”

Finally, she talked to a voter about the accountability of MPs.

“As a supporter of both electoral reform and political accountability, I firmly believe that STV will help you to hold your MP to account. It’s a system that is built upon the concept of broad support for successful candidates - meaning that instead of the current rotten system of finishing first, but not necessarily with a majority of votes, MPs will have to work harder to maintain the support of constituents from every walk of life. Picture this: instead of parties in decently safe seats internally selecting a candidate who would be almost certainly destined for victory, they would have to select candidates based off their policies in relation to that of the local constituency. With the power of STV meaning you get the option to rank candidates in order of preference, you have an instant option to vote for a variety of parties and candidates that you support over an incumbent. This is unbelievably important in terms of holding your MP accountable for the things they say, and then the things they actually do.”

The Home Secretary went campaigning in London to drum up support for fair votes.

The Home Secretary trying not to scream while calmly explaining to an undecided (or possibly just bored) voter why ranking candidates is better than crossing them.

Speaking to one voter about why she thought STV was vital, she said:

“It’s really so simple isn’t it? Parliament should represent the people and what they vote for – that’s the essence of democracy. Right now we have a system that means that doesn’t happen. A government can win an election in this country with two thirds of people voting against them, and sometimes when they get even less votes than their opponents. In the overwhelming majority of seats votes are wasted because one party has such a big advantage. You deserve better than that, your vote should be worth more than that. The system you’ll get to vote on, STV, will keep the best bit of what we have now – you will get locally elected MPs who you can go to when you need your voice heard in Parliament – but there will be no wasted votes, and our Parliament will be truly representative of what you vote for.”

Eleanor spoke to another voter who was worried that STV was complicated and could mean weak governments:

“Oh, it will be a change, I agree! But what it means is that you’ll rank candidates, rather than just voting for one of them – at its core I think that is quite simple. And you know, voters in Scotland already do that for their local elections; voters in Northern Ireland do it for most of their elections; and voters in Ireland do it for all of their elections. I think that the politicians on the other side saying its complicated are being a bit patronising, don’t you? And as for weak governments – well our current system has given us two coalition governments in a row, and while I know it’s not always been plain-sailing I think it’s been a very important thing for parties and politicians to speak to each other and work together. In fact, I think strong governments come from politicians that can work together across party lines because they don’t rely on a broken system to give them a majority – you have strong governments in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and all manner of other countries that have this system or similar systems. The lot on the other side are scaremongering rather than trusting the voters.”

Finally, Eleanor said that STV would make politicians more accountable:

“Right now millions of voters basically don’t have a choice – they are stuck with the MPs elected in safe seats, stitch-up closed shops selected by party selection not real election. Under STV there would be no safe seats: all MPs would have to work for you, the voters, to prove to you why they are worth being elected and why they are worth being re-elected. For example, if you don’t like me as your local Labour MP in London, but still want a Labour MP, then rank a different Labour candidate higher! Or rank a different party’s candidate higher, knowing that vote isn’t wasted unlike under the current system, and if your candidate doesn’t win, your votes will still count for your second favourite candidate. The long and short of it is this: STV will keep people like me on our toes, always making sure that we are acting in your interests and standing up for you, rather than relying on the fact that a red or blue rosette is enough to be elected in parts of the country.”

Meredith Hansen-Charles joined activists and campaigners from the Yes campaign in Swansea to talk to voters about the STV campaign.

Firstly, she spoke about the reforms already implemented:

Since the last election this Parliament has been one of the most radical about fixing our broken political system here in Britain. We’ve delivered votes at 16, a Cornish Assembly, an elected Senate and now the next step is Single Transferable Vote. We have not been scared to look at the issues affecting our political system and to produce real changes to that, and this has come from a coalition Government. So, when those opposing STV claim that it will lead to coalition and those coalitions will be unable to pursue truly radical agenda they are I say that they are clearly blind to the radical solution this Government is putting out. I am proud of the work this Government has done on making our democracy more democratic and accountable and I am even prouder that it has been the Lib Dems delivering on the promises we made in the election.

Secondly, she spoke about STV as a system and it’s virtues

We’re hearing that STV is too complicated for British voters to understand. Firstly, that is insulting and secondly it is not complicated at all. It is a simple system in its design so that voters essentially have to rank their preferred candidates. If you only like one of them you only need to give that one candidate your vote. If you like 5 you then rank them in order of preference. We make lists like this daily, and anyone who says that STV is too difficult for you to understand is doing you a disservice because they are saying that they do not think you are clever enough to handle deciding who to vote for and that is dangerous rhetoric. STV allows us to decide on an individual basis while ensuring that our vote is not wasted, it eliminates safe seats and will ensure that MPs must work harder for your vote.

Finally, she spoke about the multi-member constituency aspect of STV

With multiple member constituencies it is more likely that you will be represented by someone who you voted for and for you feel comfortable politically with. I know many people that do not engage with their MP because they are of a different political persuasion than they are or that they feel that if they are a Labour voter then a Conservative MP is only for those who voted Conservative. Under STV we will get rid of that hangover of our politics. I liken multi member constituencies like having multiple GPs at a local surgery. They all serve the community, but there are more than one to go to. This is the same under STV, you may have 5 MPs representing you so they may be politically more aligned with you or they may have a strong interest in an area that is relevant to a particular issue. So, instead of having just one MP who may seem incredibly distant to the issues you are dealing you will have access to a much wider range of representation and under STV they will be forced to work much harder for your support.

Billboard:

Sylviane Jaubert in Newcastle. Campaigning for the Yes campaign with local campaigners supporting the campaign.

Voters concerned about stability: For the past 6 years this country has been led by coalition governments, and the world did not collapse. These governments made some good decisions and some bad ones just like every other one party governments of the past. Some manifesto pledges are broken and many are delivered. The reason why we need STV is clear, it will make sure every vote will be counted and with that you can actually hold politicians accountable. In this country, we have so many safe seats that only discourages so many people to simply abandon politics and not make their voices heard or disaffected voters who vote but not represented. Right now our system does not bring stability, it just brings unaccountability. Coalitions are stable, as the last 6 years show and right now this country needs more accountability and STV will provide that. 

Voters want to talk about representation: There are constituencies in this country where 72 percent of voters did not vote for the winning candidate and yet they are represented by an MP that they did not vote for. That is not representation, that is an elite minority ruling the majority. Right now across the country, in so many constituencies, the majority of voters are actively silenced by our current system, effectively disenfranchised and ignored. What we need is a system that represents everyone, not just a select few. Politics dictating over voters will be over if you vote yes and we will have a new era of voters shaping the politics of the country. 

Voters who have concerns about the complexity of the system: Right now some in this country are scaremongering and placing every single one of you as idiots. For example, you can rank top 5 sweets you like in a list of preference or anything you can pick, anyone can. People who employ these tactics say that you can’t and that is just patently absurd and frankly insulting. Under the STV you will be listing your top candidates according to your preference and that will be it. Nothing more or less, just listing. Don’t let the Daily Mail or anyone else place as an idiot. This is not a complex system, you just rank according to your preference, that is it. 

(Front Page is attached as STV 1)

(this is the back page)

The final page is divided into three sections, each flanked by pictures of ordinary Brits, holding up “Yes to STV” signs and placards. 

The first section reads: 

“MAKE SEATS MATCH VOTES

Under our current system, it is possible for a party to lose votes but gain seats, and vice versa. Under our current system, a party can get less than a third of the vote but still gain a majority in parliament. Under our current system, a party can get over 10% of the votes but less than 1% of the seats. 

This is not democratic. By voting for STV, we can fix this and restore the link between the will of the people and the exercise of power.”

“EFFECTIVE LOCAL REPRESENTATION

Under our current system, some MPs have gained the backing of less than a third of their constituents. Others win only thanks to tactical voting. Many other constituencies see thousands of votes that are effectively wasted. 

This is not democratic. By voting for STV, we can fix this and get strong teams of MPs and councillors representing everyone in our community.”

“TRUST IN THE VOTERS

Because STV restores the link between your vote and who represents you, it is fundamentally about trusting voters and trusting the will of the people.” 

Contact details for the campaign, as well as the required legal text, are at the bottom of the page. 

The Prime Minister went campaigning in the East Midlands, stomping around Derbyshire in support of the Yes vote in the forthcoming referendum.

In response to one voter, who asked her whether STV would create unstable governments and make Britain "ungovernable", she responded:

"Well, I see you've read the editorial in the Telegraph. First, the fact that nobody wants to form a coalition with the Conservative Party isn't a Conservative problem, it's a Dylan Macmillan problem.

"However, to answer your question, the answer is 'no'. There will always be, if the political will is there, a route to a stable government in the United Kingdom. I think the current polling situation, which I think we can all agree is a little more upside down than normal, represents a transient state. However, if you look at the numbers, there are routes to a stable coalition. That cannot be denied. There just has to be the political will to get there and the egos of some politicians can't get in the way of that.

Speaking to a known Labour voter, the Prime Minister discussed the need for better, more proportional representation in the United Kingdom:

"If you look at the latest polling, Dylan Macmillan and the Tory Party would get a solid majority with only 35% of the vote. The Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, which is polling at a combined 45% of the vote, would be locked out of government under first past the post. If you add in progressive parties like the Greens, 50% of the country would vote for a firmly progressive coalition. That's not effective democracy. That's an election that would deny voters the progressive government that they desire. We simply must change our electoral system to ensure that situations like these do not occur.

"The reality is that the coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats has worked quite well. We've pursued a left-of-centre agenda that focuses on empowering workers, investing in our public services, and promoting real opportunity for working families. That is the agenda that Britain wants, and STV would empower that agenda to be enacted."

Visiting with voters concerned about not having their own local representative because of the multi-member constituencies, the Prime Minister said:

"The multi-member constituency aspect of this election means that you're more likely to have a representative in Parliament whom you support. Let's say you live in a constituency that votes 35% of a Labour MP, 33% for a Conservative MP, and 32% for a Liberal Democrat MP. Under our current system, you would get a Labour MP. Now, as a Labour Prime Minister, I can certainly get behind that result. But if you're a Liberal Democrat or a Conservative, then you've just lost out on getting the representative you want - despite the election being very close. Now, let's say you lived in a three member district. If you did, then you would have one Labour, one Conservative, and one Liberal Democrat MP elected. No matter who you voted for, your vote would have mattered and would have been proportional.

"That's the real benefit of STV - you ensure that people get the representation they want as close to the election result as possible. Nobody loses the representation they desire, as it's extremely likely that at least one member of a multi-member district will be someone that they support. Now, that doesn't mean that there won't be situations where there are two Conservative MPs in a district and one Labour or Liberal Democrat MP, but that will be a result that reflects the vote in that district. And it will be a real democratic result that represents the will of the voters far more than first past the post. That's the important part, the will of all of the voters, not just a potentially small plurality, is respected."

Billboard 2

Leaflet 2

One of the FAIR VOTES NOW flotilla passing Westminster, to the puzzlement of the audience.

The Home Secretary and Justice Secretary were joined by YES supporters, including Nigel Farage, in a mainstreeting flotilla down the Thames [Permission from the Admins for this madness]. Over a few days, they visited key areas of London, starting with a “FAIR VOTES NOW” chant as they passed Westminster, before moving on to campaign in Maidenhead, Reading, and Oxford. 

The Home Secretary trying not to shove Nigel Farage into the Thames.

Stopping off in Richmond, the Home Secretary spoke to one voter about why STV will mean people get the MPs they voted for:

“Parliament exists to represent the people, but at the moment it’s not representing everyone equally. Did you know that at the last election, 23 million votes were wasted and had no impact on the outcome at all? That’s a scandal. Those people, their views, aren’t represented in Parliament at all. And as a result, the 40% of people who didn’t vote for the two main parties are represented by a tiny fraction of that number of MPs.

I’m here today with Nigel Farage – a man who I am sure thinks that my policies are awful, just as he knows I violently disagree with much of what he believes. That’s okay. That’s democracy. I want to debate Nigel, to win those arguments and we have had many vigorous debates as we’ve sailed down the Thames already – and I’ll have you know I think I came out on the winning end! But under the current system, we don’t have those debates. I may hate the idea of Nigel’s policies, but I am a democrat at heart, and the right place to debate him and the platform that got millions of votes, and for me to win back over some of the voters is in the House of Commons, at the beating heart of our democracy”

In Maidenhead, Eleanor met a voter who had heard No campaign claims that STV would be too complicated, and hit back strongly:

“The No campaign is treating people like idiots, and to be honest it’s more than a little bit insulting isn’t it? Do you know the main difference is that you will rank your choices on a ballot paper, rather than putting a cross next to one candidate? That’s it. That’s what the No campaign think that voters aren’t capable of doing with their misleading project feat tactics. They’re hiding behind a misconception – one they’ve created - of it being too complicated because they’re scared of what it means. STV means no more safe seats for them, no more unrepresentative Parliament, and no more governments elected on a small minority of voters rather than appealing to a wider set of the country or politicians talking and compromising. It will be an entirely new, and entirely healthier, way of doing politics. And they’re afraid of it. They’re afraid to trust the voters. They’re peddling project fear, but the truth is that they are the ones afraid that their tired old politics will fall into irrelevance when put under the spotlight of real accountability. I’m not afraid, and all of us in the Yes campaign aren’t afraid to trust you with making decisions about who represents you rather than an old and worn out voting system.”

Finally, Eleanor spoke to another voter in Reading who said he was worried that he wouldn’t be able to boot out MPs he didn’t agree with or had behaved badly:

“I know that the project fear No campaign has been saying this, but the fact is that you will make your politicians more accountable with STV – it’ll be easier to boot us out if you don’t like us! Right now, I represent a very safe seat – it would be nearly impossible for me to lose my seat even in a very bad election. Under STV, I won’t be safe, and that’s a good thing. I’ll be held to account, and there’ll be a real prospect of losing my seat if I don’t work on behalf of my constituents. I’ll have to compete for my seat not only with other parties but with my colleagues in my party. If my voters don’t like me, they will have lots more options. That’s real accountability right there – upending the cozy closed shop in Westminster where hundreds of MPs never have any prospect of losing an election. Is it a wonder that you have long-time MP grandees on the other side coming out against it? They’re afraid of what it means - they’re spinning project fear because they’re so afraid themselves of what real democracy will mean for them!. And I think they should be – because it’s about time we trust you, the voters, and make sure your votes really count.”

The Justice Secretary having far too much fun

London

Voters concerned about accountability: First of all, I do believe accountability is the most important thing in politics. I am from what some call a safe constituency, it is solidly Labour and I am proud of that but that does not mean I don’t need to be held accountable, I do. Chances of me losing my seat is very low and that frankly offends me and should offend anyone. Safe seats are opposite of what accountability is and under STV, I won’t be in a safe seat anymore because nobody will. STV will make sure no seat is safe and make sure voters shape politics of our country. Because right now politics are dictating what voters can do and what they can’t and that has to change. 

Maidenhead

Voters want to talk about representation: Folks, today I am with Nigel today (gestures to him with a laughter). I don’t think either of us expected to be on the same side of a campaign ever but this is an issue that unites all parts of the political spectrum, from left to right. Nigel’s party, UKIP has received 4 million votes across the country and only has 2 seats and I think that is a travesty. Our most proud tradition in this country is democracy and right now it is not conducted the way British people deserve. Geoffrey Birch, a Project Fear proponent has said the other day . “If a person can’t convince more than one in five people in their area, they don’t deserve to be an MP.” I have to say it is true, one person shouldn’t be able to represent the whole area alone if they can’t convince more than one in five people but right now under this system this is the case in several constituencies across the country. It’s STV that will fix that, not keeping with the current system. When 72 percent of the votes in a district go to the trash because of this undemocratic system, is a travesty and under STV every vote will count. 

Reading

*Very rare*(just tongue in cheek :P) voters who have heard from the No campaign: No campaign or what I like to call them, the Project Fear continues to disrespect the voters of this great country and takes them as fools. You are being told, you are too stupid to understand this system when it is so simple. You just need to list your preferences according to your wishes and that is it. This system is already being used in Northern Ireland and Scotland. This system is already being used in Australia and Ireland. The world hasn’t collapsed in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Australia or Ireland. They are still functioning and doing well. Only reason why the Project Fear, which is let’s admit is only composed of the Tory Party is because they know that they will lose their power. They won’t be able to dictate voters it's either us or else, you will have a choice and they do not want you to have that choice. That is why they resort to fear mongering.

The Home Secretary, Justice Secretary, and Nigel Farage handed out special edition YES flags on their trip (one side a union flag, the other side below)

Graham Adiputera mainstreeted in Yorkshire to build support for STV and respond to the Conservative attack lines on the subject.

On the allegation that STV is too complex, Adiputera said:

“I’ve seen a lot of opponents of STV go around saying that somehow it’s too complex to understand, too complex to hold to account. This argument is incredibly insulting and patronising. There is no evidence to suggest that the system somehow will be too complex. Single Transferable Vote is already used for local government elections in Scotland and for Assembly, European and local elections in Northern Ireland.

I don’t think that the voters there have struggled with it. I don’t think voters have been left confused and helpless by long ballot papers or decided to engage in “donkey voting” as the No campaign argues. The voters there haven't given, as Macmillan says, power to fascists and communists. Again, this goes back to trust. The Yes campaign trusts the people of Britain - every part of Britain - to engage effectively in politics.

While the methods of allocating seats might be complex, the reasoning behind such allocations is simple - seats should match votes. Right now, that’s not the case. It’s bewildering to many that a party can lose votes but gain seats or vice versa, or win an absolute majority with less than a third of the vote. But those strange perversions are commonplace under First Past the Post. And nobody in the No campaign has been able to argue that that isn’t undemocratic, that that isn’t grossly unfair, that that isn’t bewildering and alienating.

If there is confusion about what STV entails, it’s likely down to No campaigners such as Roger Brigham and Dylan Macmillan getting basic facts about it wrong. Since they don’t seem to get the details of it - it’s not a “closed list” system. It’s a system where voters can decide which candidates, of all parties and none, they want to back, rather than just picking the favourites of the party machines. Unlike the No campaign, who seems to think voters can’t be handled with this power, I believe voters can and will use this power smartly and wisely.”

Ability to hold MPs to account:

“It was rather ironic to see the Tories arguing that FPTP makes it simple to kick out bad MPs - for those MPs with the support of the party establishment and a safe seat, their position is basically impervious. They are saying that STV will allow MPs who are extraordinarily unpopular to stay in office - yet this already happens, far more egregiously, under FPTP. There are MPs elected with about 70% of the constituency voting against them. That’s hardly accountable.

Under STV, you don’t have to pick the candidate favoured by party machines. You can even mix and match from different parties, use it to vote for the person rather than the party label, kick out a bad MP from the party you support or support a good candidate from the party you oppose. Unlike the false allegation from the No campaign that STV creates a “closed list” system, in reality, STV empowers the voters to reject the choices imposed by party machines. That’s an ability currently lacking under FPTP.

Under FPTP, voters also face pressure to vote tactically, or hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. That messes with any notion of MPs being held to account for what they do, instead making it a binary choice between them and their opponents. So under STV, we’ll get rid of that, and MPs will work hard for everyone’s vote, to reach out to as broad a swathe of the electorate as possible.”

Democratic mandates:

“It is absolutely ludicrous to say that under FPTP voters have an ‘easy’ way to kick out bad governments. They don’t. It is possible for a government to claim a majority with less than a third of the votes. That is patently undemocratic. Under STV, the makeup of parliament will match the will of the people - and I reckon that’ll lead to a politics of collaboration, cooperation and, as we’ve seen in most polities that use proportional representation, stability and growth.

I think it’s very telling that the No campaign is saying STV might ‘overrate’ minor parties. Let’s unpack what they mean by that. Under STV, if a party gets 10% of the votes, it’ll get approximately 10% of the seats. For the ‘No’ campaign, this counts as ‘overrating’. For the Yes campaign, this counts as the will of the people being implemented and people getting what they vote for. But if the No campaign thinks that 10% of the votes getting 10% of the seats counts as ‘overrating’, how do they describe the current situation, where a party can get a majority of the votes on less than a third of the seats?

Of course, the No campaign has now gone into full on fearmongering in the final stages - it’s insulting, it’s immature, and when they try and make this referendum about Europe or Conservative tax plans, that’s just making it party political. It’s ugly politics. They're insulting not only the motives of those who disagree, but the concerns millions have about the current system, and hiding behind hyperbolic rhetoric. It’s Project Fear. They are arguing that FPTP works, while at the same time highlighting how it isn’t.”