One of the themes of the AV referendum campaign has undoubtedly been the honesty and accuracy of the arguments given for and against its introduction. Both 'Yes' and 'No' camps have accused the other of making misleading and inaccurate claims, and despite Full Fact's best efforts to keep the debate grounded in reality, a recent YouGov poll found that only 20 per cent of people described the campaign as 'honest'.

However while monitoring the claims made during the debate, Full Fact has also come across a number of claims that fall squarely within another subset of 'interesting and yet unfactcheckable' realm. These are the claims which despite often being repeated with an air of authority, have so little evidence we simply cannot factcheck them. 

Rather then let the most noteworthy of these claims pass unnoticed into AV referendum history, we decided to review some of them in an election day round-up; letting people draw what conclusions they wish on these claims. 

A time traveller's guide to AV

One recurring theme has centred around how AV would have altered the results in past elections, raising questions on which famous leaders may or may not have been elected. 

Full Fact looked at some of the modelling of recent British elections, showing how the make-up of Parliament might have different under AV. 

Yet any conclusions about how British Prime Ministerial (and indeed American Presidential) history might have differed under AV elections can only be tentative – despite the media being often keen to make such claims. 

“GREAT leaders like Margaret Thatcher and Bill Clinton would not have been elected under the Alternative Vote system, it was revealed last night. The pair would have failed to get the 50 per cent support needed at the ballot box, and their jobs would have gone instead to James Callaghan and George Bush Snr.

"Under the complex system, where voters choose several candidates in order of preference, even Abraham Lincoln - responsible for the abolition of slavery in America - would never have become president. And last night Lincoln's biographer Amanda Foreman said: "Many regard Lincoln as America's greatest president but incredibly he would have lost under AV.”” The News of the World, 16 April, 2011.

“Under the AV system, Margaret Thatcher might never have been Prime Minister and Neil Kinnock could have bluffed his way into No 10.” The Daily Mail, 8 April 2011. 

“The trouble with mucking about with the voting system is that you might still have had Jim Callaghan as prime minister in 1979, John Major still prime minister in 1997 and Gordon Brown still prime minister today. Clearly that's not what the British people wanted.” George Osborne, Daily Mail, 13 April 2011.

In the cases of Thatcher and Tony Blair, the modelling for national results suggests both would still have won, with Blair securing an even bigger majority in 1997 (although some projections suggest Thatcher's majority may have been somewhat reduced in 1979). In 2010 the results could have given the Liberal Democrats a greater chance of forming a coalition with either main party, meaning that Gordon Brown could have retained the premiership if his party had agreed coalition terms with the Lib Dems. 

Clearly however we cannot say how voter behaviour would have changed the result in practice in any of these elections, making the speculation tentative in most cases. 

Taking the American examples of Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton, having a clear understanding of how AV would have changed the result is difficult. 

In 1992 Henry Perot stood as a third candidate when Bill Clinton defeated George Bush Sr. gaining over 18 per cent of the popular vote. His second preferences could have changed the result, however it is unclear how these votes might have split between Clinton and Bush. Predictions for the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln under AV are even more difficult, with a four-way split in the popular vote. 

First Past the Post: a pillar of British power and influence?  

While a frequent focus of the referendum debate has been the global popularity - or not - of AV and First Past the Post, some have also argued that First Past the Post has been important for British influence and power on the world stage.  

In a letter to the Times, Foreign Secretaries past and present including William Hague, Margaret Beckett and Sir Malcolm Rifkind were among those to argue that Britain's FPTP system and strong government has been important for Britain's strong voice in the world.

The letter stated: “Sir, Those of us who have represented Britain internationally know that one of the many reasons why we have always punched above our weight is our simple and straightforward voting system, a system that everyone can understand, because it gives one person, one vote.” The Times, 29 March 2011. 

This week William Hague and Margaret Beckett again wrote on this issue. “For us, the problem with the Alternative Vote system goes far deeper than many of the arguments we have seen ahead of tomorrow's referendum. It's not just that AV is costly, confusing and strikingly unfair. Nor is it that we are yet to meet anyone for whom AV would be their first-choice voting system. Instead, the most serious problem with AV is that by destroying the idea of equal votes, it would trample on 200 years of British political progress. In the end, there's just something not very British about AV. The Chartists, the Suffragettes, the great reformers – none of them campaigned for AV or anything like it. They wanted equal votes.” William Hague and Margaret Beckett, The Telegraph, 3 May 2011. 

This is very much an example where opinion and fact are being mixed together. This contentious line of argument raising questions about how AV would alter Britain's place on the world stage clearly cannot be factually settled. 

Will AV benefit women?

In a letter to the Independent yesterday, a group of prominent women argued that AV would be good for women and that First Past the Post has to go.

They wrote: “This kind of inclusive, consensual politics is good for women – from those who want to serve their country to those who want to create a fairer, more progressive democracy. Women currently make up just 22 per cent of MPs. First-Past-the-Post discourages female electoral representation. It has to go.” The Independent, 4 May 2011. 

Again, this is a claim that will attract strong opinion, but is impossible to factcheck. While women are massively under represented in Parliament today, it is difficult to say to what extent AV would deal with this problem, if indeed it would at all. 

Would Usain Bolt have lost under AV?

The use of analogies during the campaign has been widespread – with the question of whether you get more votes under AV attracting some of the most colourful comparisons. For example, the Yes campaign regularly likening the use of second preferences to situations such as opting for sausage and chips if they have run out of fish and chips and still only having one supper. Former Labour Home Secretary John Reid, who is against AV, argued in contrast that second preferences was similar to buying a chocolate bar, taking a bite and then returning it for a different choice. 

Joining in with the use of analogies, David Cameron suggested AV was deeply unfair because if allowed a situation where Usain Bolt might have lost at the Olympics. 

“PRIME Minister David Cameron compared the Alternative Vote system to Usain Bolt winning the 2012 Olympic 100m final and being given the bronze medal while the second-placed athlete gets gold.” The Sun, 16 April, 2011. 

Given that there is no voting involved in deciding the outcome of the sprint (perhaps diving or gymnastics would have made a better basis for the analogy?), this was a claim that we were forced to leave in the starting blocks.

Will MPs have to work harder with AV?

A central plank of the Yes campaign has been the question of whether MPs would have to work harder under AV. 

“MPs will have to work harder to earn – and keep – our support. Doing just enough won't be enough any more.” YestoFairerVotes. 

“AV makes lazy MPs work harder and reach out beyond their tribe. It is what Britain needs to clean up politics." Chris Huhne, The Guardian, 30 March 2011. 

There is an argument to be made that those MPs who do not have the support of 50 per cent of their electorate would have to work harder during elections to ensure that they will be gaining more first and second preference votes. However, whether MPs are likely to work harder once they are elected is clearly yet to be settled.

Will we be fined for not voting under AV?   

“Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, said that introducing AV could also lead to compulsory voting. Last night he claimed that people could face £50 fines for not voting under the Alternative Vote system.” The Daily Telegraph, 5 May 2011. 

We noticed this claim from Eric Pickles in the news round-up today. This argument can be reached by suggesting that AV in Australia led to lower turnout and thus to compulsory voting and fines for those who do not vote. Full Fact looked at whether there was a link between compulsory voting and lower turnout in Australia, and found that it was contentious; however, to look into whether the UK might fine people for not voting under AV is a leap even further into the speculative. 

AV: An introduction to shady backroom deals?

Historian David Starkey argued in the Daily Mail that AV would mean the politics of backroom deals.

"Back would come the elite politics of the bad old world, when we were ruled, not by the ballot box, but by deals done behind closed mahogany doors in country houses, London clubs and parliamentary committee rooms.” The Daily Mail, 4 May 2011. 

Whether AV would lead to more backroom deals than FPTP is largely speculative, based as it is on the assumption that negotiations such as those seen at the formulation of the present coalition government would be more common as tighter results were returned more regularly. The Yes campaign have pointed out that countries that currently use preferential voting often negotiate deals in public in advance of election campaigns.

If we adopt AV not much will change

In an article in the Independent, Dominic Lawson argued that regardless of the way in which you vote at the referendum, its introduction would change little.

"So when Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg proclaim that the introduction of AV will "end politics as usual", they are either fantasising or conning us (which, you might say, is indeed politics as usual)." Dominic Lawson, The Independent, 3 May 2011. 

The extent to which AV would change the electoral landscape of Britain is debatable. A Full Fact analysis of the modelling of past elections under AV shows that the likely make up of Parliament in 2005 under AV is not that different from FPTP. However, the models show that in 1997, under AV the Conservatives could have been relegated to third place in Parliament.

It is also important to keep in mind that under AV MPs would have to seek to gain a majority of votes in their constiuencies to win election, which would have an impact for those MPs today elected on sometimes much less than 50 per cent of the vote. Further, voter behaviour adjusting to the opportunities of AV would impact on election results.  

And finally, which country did we forget during the campaign? 

We have all become more familiar with Australia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji over the last few weeks – all made somewhat infamous in their use of AV. But what about Nauru? This Pacific Island of 9,322 people also uses AV for their electoral system – how happily they do so, we have yet to find out.