Forum Topic

BNP wants FPTP - Support the Alternative Vote (AV)

See article on why we should support a change to the voting system. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/03/observer-editorial-electoral-reformSay yes on May 5th.

Conrad Bryan ● 5484d32 Comments

I entirely agree that making the choice is not easy.More representative voting is alluring. And I do get irritated that my voice is not heard, and I do wonder if it will more likely be heard with AV. Frankly I am not sure about that in practice. Which is why I am not rushing towards AV (where anyway whatever happens my own vote will still count in my constituency). Also what is the evidence that AV will change in any significant way what you call a poor system? How much research is there? This AV exercise would not have happened had one of the main parties had a majority. We have it because both Tory and LDs want power and it is the only way they can have it. When there is another future big issue completely unrelated, like say we must have a referendum to stay/leave the EU (and the two parties then in power know that their coalition will fall apart without that referendum) then it would be likely in my estimation that we would have a referendum. Another example might be a vote or referendum on significant changes to immigration law. Another example might be a referendum for PR. What power do you think that will that give to the more extreme edges of the political spectrum?AV is more likely to give minorities more say. So what may be a very good aspect of AV in its infancy years (i.e. fairer representation) may lead to some very bad results when it grows up and the minority parties have been allowed to expand because we will have AV driving that expansion.What I would like to see is more commentary which endeavours to look forward to how the AV system will work in practice rather than in theory.

George Knox ● 5474d

That's surely ill-founded thinking. You seem to suggest that it is right to avoid a change towards a more representative voting system on the basis that it will risk more people in parliament that you do not like. First past the post is inherently poor at accurately representing the overall voting intentions of the nation. It places an undue importance on the votes of a small number in marginal seats - rather than giving equal importance to everyone's vote. AV is not quite the right answer - but it is surely best that we address faults of the existing system. Universal franchise is meant to give the same importance to each and every vote.It is a flawed argument that says a change is wrong because it means the votes that you disagree with (and in fact I also disagree with) are now represented. It is, in essence, saying that it is right to have poor system as it gives the results you like. How scary is that thinking?

Alan Clark ● 5474d

So if we step finally into PR will you then be saying the same thing about the BNP?

George Knox ● 5474d

Alternative Vote (AV), A Transferable Vote (ATV), or Single Transferable Vote (STV) as it is also known, is a step towards broader representation, hence it is a good thing. I do not care about what the BNP wants, I want ATV. Vote Yes!Marc

Marc Races ● 5475d

AV is too complicated. It bores me when I hear about it. Will put me off voting altogether. If I want the Monster Raving Loony party candidate to win, I'm unlikely to want the Tory party getting in as 2nd best.

Penny Crocker ● 5475d

George - you are correct: the pro-AV leaflet is nonsense.For a start, it is simply untrue for the pro-AVers to claim that a candidate would need 50 per cent of votes cast in order to win an election under their system.

Robin Taylor ● 5475d

AV may succeed as it's supporters are passionate about change and the rest can't be bothered. so given the state of british democracy we could end up with a small overall vote and a yes for av. irony!!!!

Peter Chadburn ● 5476d

http://playpolitical.typepad.com/all_sorts/2011/04/auf-wiedersehen-pet-makes-the-case-against-electoral-change-no2av.html

Vlod Barchuk ● 5476d

So if the MP under AV must work harder for a constituency with greater numbers of residents how will he find as much time in dealing with a query you may have? Would you then feel that your vote counts more under AV?

George Knox ● 5476d

A flyer supporting the Yes campaign came through the letterbox.It had three points.1) If an MP had 50% of the vote then perhaps he would not have abused expenses.2) If a vote wouldn’t count (under the present system) then the suggestion is that MPs would be able to get away with dodgy expenses.3) Fought in two wars for democracy and hope my vote will now count.What cynical irrelevant rubbish.Also the working harder message comes across. Actually the new law says we will have a reduction of 50 MPs seats in the UK. So they will be working harder without AV anyway.

George Knox ● 5476d

George - you're correct: there is no truth at all in the claim that AV will make MPs work harder for their constituents.Just as most people vote for the party rather than the candidate (in fact, most people cannot even name their MP) so most people's second, third and fourth preferences will be on the basis of party rather than candidate.You are also correct that most MPs already work very hard - the former MP for Brentford & Isleworth, Ann Keen, was often accused of being lazy by the toffs on the Chiswick forum, yet I know from my personal contacts with her that she was extremely hard working (and, indeed, was on a number of occasions advised to slow down by her GP).Another myth is that AV will be more representative. The Jenkins commission (undertaken by the pro-PR former SDP leader Roy Jankins) actually said AV would be less proportional than first past the post.The reason we are having a referendum on a system that Nick Clegg calls "a grubby little compromise" is because that was all he could get out of the coalition negotiations: it was a fig leaf to make it seem as though the Lib Dems had got some benefit from their pact with the Tories. In effect, then, this costly and unnecessary referendum is all about the internal politics of the coalition, and nothing to do with the real world outside.I continue to take the view that AV gives extra power to extremists: a racist will be able to vote BNP and still have a say in the final run-off between the two main parties. Are these the types of people our politicians should have to appeal to?The good thing about first past the post is that BNP votes are nearly always wasted votes, and those who cast them end up having no influence on the final result.Long may that continue.

Robin Taylor ● 5477d

Keep hearing on the AV debates that MPs will work harder for a broader number of constituents.I find this hard to believe. There are only so many hours in the day. If they have to work harder they will just not be able to cope. Some work their backsides off anyway. My experience of contact from MPs down the decades is that some are good and some are not, as in many walks of life. Why should AV in reality make them any better? If you live in Ealing Acton then the prospective MP will indeed be concerned to try and work for people of all persuasions. But in safe Labour Southall or Hackney why should any one care about non Socialists? And how many constituencies are actually at risk compared to the safe seats?Also when they are campaigning at election time, are MPs going to have to appear to be even more things to all men and women. Why should we believe them? Especially when an election is followed by a coalition when the manifesto gets rewritten? And if collectively they are going to have to appear to be all things to all men how many principles of Right and Left are they going to have to give up. If you are a floating voter that may not concern you unless you feel that the country should be ruled by the left for a few years and then by the Right. But if you are a born and bred rank Socialist or Conservative, then are you not going to see a number of your favorite political policies sacrificed? In other words shall we only have bland politics for ever more? Shall we also see future centrist politics avoiding tackling some of the big issues? Health, Malthusianism, Equality, Benefits, Tax, Education, Defence etc? People keep forgetting that Clegg did not agree with AV before the last election. Was he not right?I understand very well that if a large proportion vote Liberal but they get few seats, then on the FACE of it this seems unfair. But have you really thought through the consequences and what AV would be like in the real world? What would Britain look like in 30 years time?

George Knox ● 5478d

I expect there are some stats somewhere. However don't forget that in the three TV debates new boy Cleggy made a very strong impact on those who were fed up with politics as indeed did Blair in 1997.I think the results would be very different now.

George Knox ● 5480d

For the first time the Weeks household is divided politically. She wants to vote one way and I am for t'other.Has anyone come across any guesimate as to how AV might have altered the results in 2010.

Graham Weeks ● 5480d

George wrote: >Please explain a little more about you third para. I don't follow it at the moment.<[Under PR, of course, a minority party can have more influence than its numbers mandate - as we can see here with all those Liberal Democrate policies that the tories are forced to implement :^) ]As indicated by the smiley, the reference to the tories being forced to implement lots of LibDem policies is ironic....

D Fox ● 5481d

D Fox.Please explain a little more about you third para. I don't follow it at the moment. That hateful PFI is a good example.You may know that Ealing Council is running some of those.

George Knox ● 5482d

The problem with Labour was that they were so right wing with all the PFI stuff. real Thatcher/Reagan stuff. It is so obvious with the Blair/Bush Alliance. The Blair Labour party was just so right wing and it was a real shame. hopefully Labour will shift to somewhere near where they should be. The PFI stuff and also Labour's privatisation within the health service is one of the big reasons for the debt. Great that Labour built more hospitals and schools, however they paid out our money in the worst deals possible!! I find it strange when old Blair footsoldiers complain about what the Tories are planning to do to the NHS when they subsidised private healthcare companies to the extent they did. Can Labour provide us with a choice?? If they don't then the argument over PR/AV will be pointless. The Centre does not exist. Perhaps the ConDem govt is the most centrist we have had for a couple of decades or so??? wait and see?? i am tempted 60/40 to vote yes with the second preference as no!!

Peter Chadburn ● 5482d

George wrote: >What really is of concern is that centre ground administration might become a kind of politics which I start to despise, but can do very little about if we have AV. And if we have PR might it be that politics will become even more opaque?

D Fox ● 5482d

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. So A Transferable Vote (ATV), technically known as Single Transferable Vote (STV) is but the first step on the road to Proportional Represenations (PR) and true representation.Therefore ATV (nee STV) is the way forward.

Camilla Horsfall ● 5483d

I think this referendum will be a yawn and unless the organisers also think that, there should be enough ballot papers. If someone wishes to vote is it not a bit odd that they leave things to the last minute?I agree that manifestos get changed, but not wholesale and not right at the start of a new government and with the help of the most senior civil servant. This fairness business is the difficult area. If I don't want the tram above all other then I would be voting local Tory. If there is no special burning issue then I probably will vote on idealogical grounds. For instance I might want government bureaucracy slashed and so Tory again. But I might want power devolved locally and greater empowerment and so be Liberal in that case. So I would choose what is fair for my way of thinking. I don't think I have ever been asked to consider what is fairest for the centre ground. What value would there be in having political views if the centre ground always ruled our lives? Would Democracy lose its strengths?What really is of concern is that centre ground administration might become a kind of politics which I start to despise, but can do very little about if we have AV. And if we have PR might it be that politics will become even more opaque?So if AV is for you, then how in practice do you see it working and will it be better for the country rather than for the populist voters?

George Knox ● 5483d

We are all assuming that the polling stations don't run out of ballot papers and have enough staff to cope with the post-work rush and don't close their doors on a long queue of the electorate.(The ires a saying in statistics and analysis that which has happened before is more likely to happen else than something different).CFH.

Camilla Horsfall ● 5483d

AV will probably marginalise the BNP further (which is why they don't want it). After all, if, as seems the case, at least 80% of the voters DON'T want the BNP and their ilk, then they have no hope of getting in. People who vote for extremist parties are less likely to give a second (or indeed any) preference to a mainstream party, so a BNP voter is likely to not declare any other preferences or perhaps transfer to UKIP and English Democrats.What might happen is that politics will become more centrist, which is a fairer reflection of the bell curve of national political opinion.All governments involve horse trading (weak or strong), it's just that it is within one party rather than (potentially) more out in the open. And since when has a government delivered exactly what it says in its manifesto? Some of the best run countries routinely have coalition governments - admittedly so does Ireland... :^) And many of the worst run countries have strong governments.Because AV means that the least objectionable candidates have the best chance of getting preferences, it means that far from listening to the fringe, politicians will have to listen to the biggest blocks of supporters (those for other mainstream parties) if the want to get elected.So, overall a tiny improvement in democracy - although we'll still end up with more-or-less the same bunch of power-hungry lying liars in charge....

D Fox ● 5483d

AV will mean weaker government, more horse-trading and will be more expensive to administer.Nick Clegg called it a "grubby little compromise".But his party has also said it is just a "stepping stone" - so we can expect more referenda if this one succeeds (until we end up with exactly what the Lib Dems want).AV also gives more voice to the BNP and other extremists: one of the most compelling reasons why that party doesn't do well is because those who are inclined to vote for them think it is a wasted vote. The AV system effectively tells them that you can vote BNP without the risk of throwing your vote away because it will transfer to other nutty parties like UKIP and the English Demcorats - and your prejudices will also have some influence in the final run-off (usually between Tory and Labour). In other words, mainstream politicians will have to pay heed to those on the fringe.PS:- Yesterday on the Andrew Marr show, Eddy Izzard spoke in favour of AV and Professor Robert Winston spoke against. That just about says it all, doesn't it?

Robin Taylor ● 5483d

AV won't stop lying in a million years and I am not convinced by the argument that AV will make MPs more accountable. As soon as most MPs get in by whichever process, they will be driven by power which they yearn for.There may well be much more horse trading. Is that what people want?And with 24 hour constant reporting the politicians are much more in the limelight and so we have become more aware of how they manage to disappoint us.I consider that instead of AV there should be much more scrutiny in Parliament and locally, and that Scrutiny should be given more powers so as to rein in excesses. I suspect many MPs would support that as they are fed up with the power of the Executive.

George Knox ● 5483d

Yes George it is a case of whether parties will still lie to us. Much of the the evidence about Blairs dodgy dossier being dodgy was in the public domain anyway but the press was weak in challenging campbell and blair. So do we way up the virtues/not of av against how our parties operate. seeing the proposals for the nhs we see much of the same sort of resulting chaos that labour would have offered. maybe av would just make candidates more accountable??? i really think that people have lost some faith in the integrity or our leaders. i think robin's argument on this one is completely potty. BNP need a divisive system not one that may potentially gives people a sense that their choice counts. So "Will your choice count?" should be the criteria we look at. i am marginally in favour at the moment but am concerned as others are about the blandness that could result.

Peter Chadburn ● 5483d

It might be said that North Ealing which is also a swing constituency is another case in point.If you want Steve Pound who has a good reputation for being a hard working constituency MP and has known the issues in Ealing very well for a long time, then as a second vote you may well vote for a Liberal because you favour social justice. If on the other hand you are a Tory and cannot bear the history of the Labour party getting the country’s finances wrong time and time again,and also you want a radical shake up of our lousy educational system, you may well as has happened in recent years vote Liberal as a second choice and put Steve Pound at the bottom of your list.In this scenario you might get what you don’t want, which is a Liberal you probably have never heard of and with an unknown track record and who turns out to be utterly useless. So locally we might have a politician who fills us with even less respect for the political system than already.We know from a recent bye election in Barnsley that the Liberals did very badly. My suspicion is that the Liberals will take a real beating in the next general election. This AV exercise may then be thought to be a complete waste of time and money. And if we end up with AV and only two main parties we shall have to bear the considerably increased costs of the new system for ever more.

George Knox ● 5483d

If you have the country voting for the three main parties at around the 30% mark then of course it is alluring under the heading of simple fairness to vote for PR. But AV is not PR. But what is of concern is after such an election what happens then? Had there been a coalition when Blair took us into the war against Iraq I do suspect that that the objection of the Liberals would have forced a general election. As so many in the country were opposed to war what would have been in both the Labour and the Tory manifestos? They both supported the war. What would they have said to tempt the voters? Would there have been about turns? Would that have affected our confidence and trust in politicians? Probably yes and for the worse.OK that war was promoted on a false premise, but at the time that was not apparent. I can’t workout what will happen with tactical voting in the future. In Acton there were 7 candidates. If I had really wanted to oppose the Left how would I have voted to keep the Right in? Also historically is the UK generally more Left or more Right in its entirety? If say it is Right, then I would never be able to be confident that the iniquities of the Tories could be reversed. The same goes for the Left. Let’s face it, both parties have at times been candidates for ousting as soon as possible. The power of the voter in such circumstances would be less and not more.Another thing. Voters do not understand how Government or Parliament works. So if our jealousy of wealthy money lenders (which sits deep in the psyche) sways a weak government to follow the populist vote, then it could well be that our economy suffers substantially because the financiers could be driven to France or Germany (where the time zone is only one hour different). Sadly in some cases Government knows best what medicine has to be dished out. But the courage of their convictions will undoubtedly be compromised.How confusing will it be to first select and then vote for a list of people you don’t know from Adam?So ostensibly you may think that AV is about fairness. But what the pro AVs have not yet addressed, I think, is the very uncomfortable knowledge that after an election the manifestos will be rewritten. That also smacks of unfairness. I thought that under both the Liberals and the Tories the NHS would be safe. Some joke, if you watched last night’s programme on young doctors in hospitals, or consider that 261 jobs will go at the West Mid.

George Knox ● 5484d

George,I am in favour of AV for many reasons, the key one for me being that under FPTP we often end up with elected MPs receiving less than 50% of the vote in marginal seats, like we have seen in Ealing Central and Acton (won on only 38% of the vote!)in May 2010. This is hardly representative democracy. It is also worth noting that two thirds of MPs elected to parliament in 2010 got in with less than 50% of the vote. This is a real travesty and indicates that FPTP is beyond its sell by date. It is fit for a bygone era of two-horse-race elections. I think that period of two power brokers (Tory and Labour) is dying and we are seeing more plurality within our democracy; people are voting more and more for non-mainstream parties. We see this trend across Europe which is why I believe FPTP is not suitable for a diversity of views and makes many feel disenfranchised. We need to address the demoralising aspects of FPTP such as "safe seats", tactical voting, wasted votes, MP getting in on less than 50% votes. AV at least moves us in the right direction.To the BNP point; the fact that they are campaigning for a no vote demonstrates that they see their chances of getting seats much better under FPTP. This to me is a worse scenario than worrying about them casting a second preference vote (a right every voter would have equally) which is likely to go to a mainstream party or at least a better alternative in any case.    I am sure there will be lots more said in the papers over the comings weeks for us all to read.

Conrad Bryan ● 5484d

I agree it is a difficult call.I didn't understand what Robin was saying. Generally the BNP are so small that I don't think they should cause us concern. So they are not a reason to support AV as seemed to be the case for Conrad.I certainly feel politics will be blander. Does that perhaps mean that even less people will be engaged in politics?But with AV I shall be presented with say 3 main party (or two and a bit) manifestos knowing they will be carved up after an election. That really is confusing and I am sure it will mean politicians will be seen to be even more disreputable than now.Apart from Australia who else has AV? If nobody, what do we know that no one else does?

George Knox ● 5484d

But Nick Griffin wants people to feel dis-enfranchised in general that is the only way they can gain influence. I am for AV in that it means that at least 50% of a constituency has some connection to that candidate even if not first choice. I am against on the grounds that parties will be in danger of becoming blander in order to appeal to the widest section. the 2 big parties especially will decieve us even more!!!

Peter Chadburn ● 5484d

The BNP will usually get knocked out in one of the early rounds of voting under AV. This means that the second, third and fourth preferences of BNP voters will be taken into account - meaning we will have Nazis helping to determine who the final choice of MP is.Do you really want this?Vote NO to AV.

Robin Taylor ● 5484d

I think that BNP support for PR is what this badly written article suggests.The BNP is an irrelevance.

George Knox ● 5484d