It's not hard to believe that the BNP, like all small parties, could expect a higher vote under AV. Someone tempted to vote BNP now may resist doing so in favour of choosing between the top two candidates in his or her constituency. Under AV they need have no hesitation voting BNP number one and then transferring their vote to a more respectable party. Having two or three bites of the cherry is a luxury AV affords the supporters of extremist parties, but not the supporters of mainstream parties.What I'd like people like Joan Ryan to explain is why the people who support the BNP shouldn't have some say in the formation of government. Surely democracy is about getting a parliament that represents them best, and if that means that people who like what the BNP are about get some sort of say in how the country gets governed?
This does not mean the BNP would be any more likely to win a seat in the Commons under AV than it does now. But it would make the party more influential. The major parties would want to win transfers from people backing the BNP. It's not hard to imagine how ugly that would be.
Note: Joan Ryan was the third highest claiming MP who also flipped her home and voted to keep her expenses secret. Under an AV system, a lot more of those MPs would have found themselves being destroyed at the ballot box by alternative candidates.
No I don't have a problem with this either. I don't have a problem with people voting for any of the other parties I don't agree with either.
ReplyDeleteIt is true though, isn't it, that voters who vote for the smaller parties (ie any party other than the top two in a constituency) effectively get 2 bites at the cherry? They get to vote for their party first (BNP, UKIP, Greens or whichever of the main three parties is no 3), but then still get to have a say in who wins out of the top 2 as well.
ReplyDeleteWhereas the second choice of a voter who puts one of the top 2 parties first is never used.
I would hazard a guess that the Lib Dems are the 3rd party in the greatest number of constituencies. Their voters will therefore have much more say over who runs the country than the millions who vote Conservative or Labour.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteI would hazard a guess that the Lib Dems are the 3rd party in the greatest number of constituencies. Their voters will therefore have much more say over who runs the country than the millions who vote Conservative or Labour.
No, the 2nd choices only get taken into account if someone doesn't get an outright majority.
I'd like to know what you think is so unfair about that, or why a constituency should be represented by someone who hasn't been determined to be who the people want, or at least, who the people will suffer most.
Alright, lets take a simple 2 way seat. Con vs Lab marginal, with Lib Dems way behind in third. I vote Con, my mate votes Lab, another mate votes LD. Lets say its neck and neck, couple of hundred votes in it either way, each party on mid 40% of the vote. Now my mate who voted LD gets 2 votes - his original one and now his 2nd choice, which counts as much as either of the other two. How is that fair? If second choices were weighted to be worth less than first choices I could see an argument in favour, but for someone else's second choice to be equal in weight to my first seems wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd it has to be said that its entirely possible in a 3 way fight for the 'winning' candidate to have had less overall votes than one of the losers. It all depends who is 3rd on first choices. Imagine a 3 way split Con/Lab/LD on first choice. If LD come third by a few votes, their 2nd choices get distributed, say 75/25 Lab/Con. So Lab win seat. But if Con had been running 3rd by a few votes, their second choices would favour LD by a massive margin - not many Con voters are going to put Lab as 2nd choice (or vice versa). So Con & Lab 2nd choice will favour LD by a big proportion. Thus its entirely possible for Lab to win the seat despite having less 1st and 2nd choices than the LDs, if they LDs come 3rd on first choices.
Now my mate who voted LD gets 2 votes - his original one and now his 2nd choice, which counts as much as either of the other two. How is that fair?
ReplyDeleteHow is it not fair? He doesn't get two votes. His vote just gets switched in the event of a tie. As would someone with an LD vote first and a Con vote 2nd. Someone who votes Con only still gets their Con vote in the 2nd round.
If LD come third by a few votes, their 2nd choices get distributed, say 75/25 Lab/Con. So Lab win seat. But if Con had been running 3rd by a few votes, their second choices would favour LD by a massive margin - not many Con voters are going to put Lab as 2nd choice (or vice versa). So Con & Lab 2nd choice will favour LD by a big proportion. Thus its entirely possible for Lab to win the seat despite having less 1st and 2nd choices than the LDs, if they LDs come 3rd on first choices.
Not quite sure I followed that, but yes. It's entirely possible to a party to win based on 2nd or 3rd choices.
The point of AV is that you're trying to get the best information about people's preferences. There's the parties people really like, the parties they like quite a lot and the parties they don't like much and the parties they hate. Despite being a UKIP member, I'd much rather be able to say "oh, but I'll be OK with a Conservative winning" than to have my vote completely disregarded.
See my post on restaurant preferences for more of an explanation of this.