NEVER has such a boring issue created as much division.

Recent weeks have seen mudslinging matches, bitter recriminations, and the stability of the coalition called into question - all over one subject, the Alternative Vote (AV).

But what exactly is it and why have politicians become so enraged, or enthused, by it?

The new voting system aims to change the way you cast your ballots.

Britain’s current first-past-the-post system is a simple one-vote arrangement, in which voters each choose one candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins.

But some countries use a system which lets voters rank candidates in order of preference - including Northern Ireland.

Now AV, a form of such a system, could be coming to Britain.

It aims to make it almost impossible for candidates to win their seats with only a minority of the popular vote.

But critics claim it is too complex, and is fundamentally less fair.

The Lib Dems support it. The Tories oppose it. And Labour is split down the middle.

Among the fiercest critics of the system in Swindon is Conservative council leader Rod Bluh.

“The person who is the most popular candidate is unlikely to be elected, unless they get more than 50 per cent of the vote,” he said.

“The one with the lowest number of votes drops out, and the second or third preferences on ballot papers of people who voted for them are redistributed to the remaining candidates.

“So the person who is most popular often won’t be the winner. And those who vote for the least popular candidates are likely to find their votes used more than once.

“This is a system not in favour of those who vote for the most popular candidates. It’s in favour of those who vote for the least popular.”

Asked to break down the main objections, Coun Bluh said: “It’s likely to lead to more coalition governments. And as we know from the last time, it’s the party with the least number of votes that often decides what that’s going to be. The party that gets the least votes gets most say about who governs.”

The version of AV proposed for the UK is not very popular worldwide.

“Only three countries in the world use it,” said Coun Bluh.

“Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea. And I believe Fiji is getting rid of it. Australia doesn’t like it. 60 per cent want to get rid of it.

“So the only country that does like it is Papua New Guinea. So if its not good enough for the rest of the world, it’s not good enough for the UK.”

He claims it’s also a “very complicated system. Some people are struggling to get their heads around how it works.”

In summary, he said: “If you have a system that isn’t perfect, why make it worse?

“On a personal note, I’m not following a party line on this.

“It’s a personal view. I just don’t see it makes sense. At least under the current system you know the one who’s got the most support gets elected.”

Not so, says Coun Stan Pajak, leader of the Liberal Democrats in Swindon.

He says he can’t see how it could lead to more coalitions, and rebutted Coun Bluh’s argument that it lets some people effectively vote twice.

“It’s been in operation in Australia, and they’ve only once had a hung parliament,” he said.

“We all do Alternative Voting every day of our lives. We say: if you haven’t got X, I’ll go for Y.

“It’s like if you go to the pub and say I’ll have a pint of Archers. If they haven’t got that, you ask for a pint of Arkells.

“You haven’t bought two drinks. You’ve bought one; but you’ve shown a preference.

“With AV, in theory, the winner will have over 50 per cent of the vote. It’s the system used to elect the speaker in the House of Commons.

“If it’s good enough for Parliament, it’s good enough for the general election.

“I think it’s time has come. People are unhappy with politics and politicians.

“You’ll no longer get tactical voting. You have a second preference, instead of people saying: if you don’t vote for me the really horrible person will get in.”

One criticism of the system is that it could give more power to fringe parties.

Some especially fear that the hard-right BNP will benefit.

But Coun Pajak said: “They’ll always get a low vote, and people won’t vote for them as a second preference after Labour, or the Greens or UKIP or Lib Dem because they’re so different from what you believe in.

“People’s preferences are no longer black and white, and voting should reflect that.”

We will know soon enough which system the public prefers.

On Thursday, the referendum to accept or reject AV will be held alongside the local council elections, and the results are due to be announced on Friday.

CELEBRITY VOTES

A NUMBER of celebrities have leant their weight to the “No to AV” or “Yes to AV” causes.

But it seems that the Yes campaign is leaving the No camp in the dust when it comes to celebrity backing.

Among the supporters of “Yes to AV” are John Cleese, Eddie Izzard, Stephen Fry, Joanna Lumley, Kriss Akabusi, Colin Firth, Steve Coogan and Jonathan Ross.

The “no” campaign’s cluster of stars shines much less brightly, consisting as it does of sports personalities like cricketers David Gower and Darren Gough, rower James Cracknell, jockey Sam Waley-Cohen, and Formula One boss Frank Williams.

Meanwhile, high-profile politicians have been trading blows about it. In what has become an increasingly bitter public spat, Prime Minister David Cameron called the AV system “obscure, unfair and crazy”, while deputy prime minister Nick Clegg hit back by accusing the Cameron-backed No campaign of “lies, misinformation and deceit”.

The row has led some newspapers and commentators to question the unity of the coalition, and how long it will last.

YOUNGSTERS GET TO GRIPS WITH AV

FAR from being too complicated, AV is child’s play.

That’s the view of one headteacher who is running a ballot in his own school today.

At stake is not the future of British democracy.

Instead, the children are voting for something much more serious – which sweets they should be given by teachers.

They will vote for one of four kinds – Starburst, Fruit Pastilles, Chewits or Jelly Babies – by listing the ones they want in order of preference on their ballot papers: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Or, just like in a real AV election, they could opt to pick just one and leave it at that.

Then, depending on what the outcome of the AV referendum is on Friday, they will receive either the winning sweets according to the first-past-the-post counting system, or according to the AV counting system – whichever wins.

Tony McAteer, headteacher at Holy Rood Junior School, said: “There are campaigns for each different type of sweets.

“The final outcome will be decided by whichever system wins in the country as a whole – do we get the same result, or a different result?

“Why are we doing it with young children? They’re the future. And we think it’s important to educate them about current affairs.

“This is a very practical way of demonstrating how both of the systems actually work.

“First-past-the-post is the simplest. But do I have a preference? I wouldn’t want to say. I can see the merits of both. AV can be presented as overcomplicated by some, and as relatively straightforward by others.”

Will the 272 children who are voting, ranging from Year 3 to Year 6, understand the system?

“They should,” he said.

“I think children will be able to perfectly well understand it.”

And who exactly is doing the counting? Surely there is scope for electoral corruption by Fruit Pastille-lovers, for instance? Mr McAteer laughed.

“We have a team of very honest teaching assistants,” he said.

FIRST PAST THE POST SYSTEM

UNDER first-past-the-post, the system we use at the moment, voters put an X next to their candidate.

The candidate with most Xs wins the seat.

But often the winner will be someone who received a lot less than half the popular vote, because the rest is spread among the other competing parties.

Under AV, you rank candidates by 1,2,3 4, 5 and so on, in order of preference.

Or, if you wish, you could simply list one preferred candidate and leave it at that – you can give as many or as few preferences votes as you want.

If no single candidate reaches over 50 per cent, then the candidate with the fewest number 1 (or “first-preference”) votes is eliminated.

Those who voted for this candidate as their number 1 has the other candidates which they ranked as 2, 3, 4, 5 etc relabelled as 1, 2, 3, 4.

These relabelled votes are then transferred to the remaining candidates.

This process continues until an outright winner has been arrived at.

Take the example of Mr McAteer’s sweets (see diagram above) which have been voted for by five people using AV.

This diagram is a mini mock-up of the school’s sweet vote.

In reality, it would happen on a much bigger scale, but the same principles apply.

The number of first-preference votes for Jelly Babies and Starburst are neck-and-neck – each have two first-preference votes apiece.

So Chewits, which has just one first preference vote, is knocked out of the contest because it cannot win.

But for the person who voted for Chewits as their first-preference, their second-preference vote then kicks in.

Their second-preference vote, for Jelly Babies, becomes their de facto first-preference.

This gives Jelly Babies three first-preference votes, over Starburst’s two.

Jelly Babies wins!