I write things because I think I've got something that's worth reading. I create websites because the people I make them for have something worth showing off. I talk because, more often than not, I have something worth saying.

I vote because I want the people that work for me to do their job.

In 2005, I voted for Labour - not because I wanted to vote for Labour, but because I knew that tactically, it was my only real choice. Last year, I emplored everyone to abandon tactical voting and use their vote properly, because I – somewhat naively – believed that the party I normally vote for, the Lib Dems, had a real chance at securing some sort of power.

Tactical, Schmactical

Looking back, it was inevitable, really, that in the last push to get votes, the different camps would turn around and employ methods of scaring people into persuading them back into voting tactically. Their weak explanation was simple: there are only two real choices in modern day politics - those of the Conservative and Labour parties.

Thing is, though, I'm neither a Conservative nor a Labour supporter. Sure, I've voted Labour since my I received my first polling card, but I've never really supported the full ideals of either party. I don't think I'm alone either.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that there is a large portion of the population who support other parties. Some of these people vote for the party they support - which is what I started doing last year. Others succumb to the tactical voting crowd, voting for – in their mind – the lesser of two 'evils'. More worryingly, however, is the remainder who develop a level of apathy to the whole idea, and simply don't vote. Don't get me started on that topic.

Our current voting system - first past the post - encourages and fosters this, meaning that those who represent us at the highest level of politics are elected, in some cases, by the tiniest of majorities. It also gives us outcomes where the parties that run our country often have more of the seats in parliament, but less of the votes of the populace.

First Past the Post and the Alternative Vote

Many celebrities, more articulate than I, have waxed lyrical about the Alternative Vote. Where FPTP forces you to think tactically and vote that way, should you so desire, AV completely wipes out the need for tactical voting, since you can vote with your principles in mind. Both voting methods are explained in the Electoral Commission's video, shown below:

Looking back to the results of the General Election in 2010 for Warwick and Leamington we can see that Chris White of the Conservatives was elected as our member of parliament. The results, sourced from Wikipedia, are shown below:

It has to be assumed that some of the people who voted for Labour did so because they felt that the party they really wanted to vote for had no real chance of winning the election. I expect that, in the case of AV, there will be plenty of UKIP voters who would probably have the Conservatives as their second choice.

It's impossible to know how people would have voted using AV in the last election, because – simply – they didn't. I expect that, with the fear of having 'wasted your vote' lifted from people's shoulders, they would vote with their heart as opposed to voting with someone else's head, and that the results would have been very different.

Would Alan Beddow have triumphed? Would James Plaskitt have retained his seat? Would Chris White have won anyway? I don't know – but I'd like to find out next time.

It's not Rocket Science

There are some who say that it should be one vote for one person – it is. You still only get one vote, it's just that if your first choice is eliminated, your next choice gets your single vote. Some say the system is too complicated. I say the public are cleverer than these people give them credit – if, as these people say, the general populace is incapable of ranking candidates in order, then we are truly screwed.

Others say that they only want to vote for one person – that's fine, just make sure you don't put any numbers higher than 1 on your ballot paper. Today, people are, have and will be voting for representatives of their local and county councils, as well as on the referendum. In the case of local and county council elections, you often have more than one vote. For instance, in Warwick and Leamington, we have 3 votes for the county council and 5 for the local council. It's not rocket science.

Another argument against AV is that it doesn't offer a fair representation. Take a look at the table below:

To FPTP supporters, that's a fair outcome. To AV supporters, it's far less fairer than having a government where the number of seats a party occupies tallies a little better with the number of votes they received during the election.

If seats were put in proportion the number of votes received by the populace, this is how things would look:

AV is a step towards fixing that problem, ensuring that each elected member has the backing of at least 50% of their constituency.

Why I'm voting Yes

However, the biggest reason for me voting yes, is simple. I don't want to have to vote tactically, and I don't want everyone else to vote tactically. I want them to choose how they want to vote, unencumbered by the fear that, because their person doesn't stand a chance means they can't vote for the person they want to.

Some say that AV is a compromise. Sure it's not the system that everyone wants, and it's not a completely representational system – only changes in boundaries can make sure that our population is represented in a fairer fashion – but if this fails, there's very little chance we'll get another shot in the foreseeable future.

The referendum gives us a chance to make sure the people's voice is being heard, and gives them a chance to feel that their choice matters. For me, voting yes means my voice, and the voices of others who feel they're not being listened to, will be heard a little clearer.

People aren't stupid. Let's not treat them that way.