Today could be a historic day for all of us in Britain, and maybe even for others elsewhere, too, considering that positive changes in British foreign policy could potentially be on the horizon if enough of us vote Yes at the polling stations in the coming hours.

The reason for this is that the referendum on AV is taking place across the UK today; our first nationwide referendum in 36 years. AV - the Alternative Voting system - is the method by which a voter can rank his or her voting preferences in order. In practical terms, this means that if I vote for MP candidate 'A' at the next General Election as my preferred first choice to represent me and my constituency, but he doesn't quite manage to receive enough votes from others, maybe at least my second choice candidate, 'B', will win. And if not 'B', then maybe my third choice, 'C', etc. So at least I - and everyone else who votes - ends up with an MP whom we all agree (at least somewhere in our preferences) is tolerable. Other much better-informed political commentators than me have already thoroughly explained the intricacies of the AV system elsewhere, so I won't try to repeat or out-do them here. A quick search online brings up hundreds of pertinent articles explaining in great detail how voting Yes or No to AV today can affect the likelihood of one party or another having a greater or lesser probability of winning seats in certain constituencies. Furthermore, the University of Essex has just published research showing that many constituencies would definitely have ended up with different MPs (from rival parties) to the ones who did in fact win at the last election if AV had indeed already been in place rather than FPTP (First Past the Post). Instead of getting bogged down in the currently ubiquitous debate on AV vs. FPTP, which I imagine we are all by now thoroughly nauseated by, having been besieged by countless newspaper articles, flyers and leaflets over the past weeks, I would like instead to suggest another interesting reason for voting Yes today which has nothing to do with party allegiance whatsoever.

Since childhood, when politics and the role of one's local MP was first explained to me, I’ve never quite fully agreed with the seemingly universally accepted premise that every MP must be a member of a major political party. My main gripe with this: Why doesn't each constituency simply vote for a decent, successful, local person who has shown a long and committed loyalty to that place and its people and whose concern for the welfare of said constituency is beyond question? By voting for an independent MP who is loyal only to his constituency and not to a wider political party or leader, a constituency is much more likely to have its wishes enacted not only in important local matters but also in the potentially more consequential votes in parliament. Call me optimistic, but I believe that if every constituency elected a truly independent MP, there would likely be a lot less problems locally and nationally, and even internationally. For, in regard to foreign policy for example, if it came to a vote on whether we should go to war or not (in an extreme case), I genuinely believe independent MPs all acting purely on behalf of their constituents' sincerest wishes (rather than being told how to vote by a party, leader, donor and/or other vested interest) would generally vote No. (Like I said, call me optimistic.) Surely voting for a candidate who a political party has cynically parachuted into your constituency is basically asking for trouble?

Another perennial problem, at least from my humble experience of running the Current Affair Society at the University of Sussex and my workings with the students’ union therein, is that party politics can often be incredibly divisive. Two normally sane and rational people who might generally get along perfectly well in any other situation can suddenly fire up and boil over into the most absurdly savage and polarised diatribes when they realise that they each support opposing political parties. I won't dwell on this fascinating (and often worrying) anomaly of human behaviour, but suffice it to say that if each constituency voted for a well-known, good-natured, strong, law-abiding, independent, local candidate, then divisive party politics would quickly become a thing of the past. (Hear, hear?) Now, whenever I dare to bring this up in conversation, the first response I generally receive is something along the lines of "The only independent MP I can think of who ever actually attracted enough votes to win is Martin Bell". True, Martin Bell, BBC stalwart and MP for Tatton, 1997-2001, is probably the most famous (if only) independent MP of recent years. Even Esther Rantzen couldn't quite muster enough votes to break the oppressive stranglehold of party politics in her constituency, Luton South, despite also being a famous television personality. However, if AV were the voting system in place, all this could change.

Let's take the example of three rival candidates, for the sake of argument: Candidate A represents one party; Candidate B represents another party; and Candidate C is an independent candidate who represents no party. It's likely that someone voting for Candidate A will be loath to give his second preference vote to Candidate B (as B's party probably represents everything that an A supporter hates with utterly apoplectic rage). However, this same A supporter may well instead give Candidate C (a familiar, friendly face from the neighbourhood), his second preference vote. And, likewise, a voter for Candidate B might also prefer to give the independent Candidate C his second preference vote, and leave Candidate A off the list. In this way, if Candidate C receives a decent amount of first preference votes from all of his friends and associates (and their friends, etc.) in the constituency where he's lived and worked all of his life (so this could potentially be a large number of votes, say - for the sake of this argument - equal to the first preference votes that Candidates A and B each receive), and if he also receives the second preference vote from literally everyone who gave their first preference vote to Candidates A or B, then that could well make make him (Candidate C) by far the most popular overall candidate.. (I know this is a simplified scenario for illustration, but this could actually become even more likely if many more than three candidates run.) Although hung parliaments and resultant coalitions might indeed become more likely, this cannot be regarded as a bad thing if it achieves broader representation for the populace and a more collaborative government as by their very independent nature these new MPs could be less likely to approach work with pre-formed party political prejudices. Does all this sound idealistic? Perhaps. How many current MPs can say they genuinely grew up in the constituencies they represent? How many current MPs can genuinely name the main streets, points of interest and familiar faces of their constituencies? Why doesn't the owner of one of these faces simply stand up and run for election? It could make a lot more sense. And maybe, if AV is voted in, more of these people will.