Alternative Vote just gives illusion of fairness

Published: 21 April, 2011

• DON’T spoil your ballots, give a clear No to the Alternative Vote on May 5.

The concept is fundamentally flawed, as a quick look at what happened in Hampstead & Highgate at the general election shows. 

Share of the votes cast was: Labour 32.8, Tory 32.7, Lib Dem 31.2), with Glenda Jackson being elected by 42 votes. OK, you can say, almost two-thirds of those voting were against her but a similar proportion was against all three candidates!

What would have happened under AV? Well, once the smaller parties had been eliminated, the three parties would probably have still had similar shares of the votes, so then the system would take the Lib Dem votes and look at their second preferences, giving the votes to whichever party was indicated.

I can’t guess how these second votes would have split, so cannot say who would have emerged as the winner, but that is precisely why I do not think this AV system will be an improvement. 

All it does is allow the second thoughts of the third-placed party to decide the final result. How is this even remotely fairer?

A proper proportional voting system might be better, but the fact is that in Hampstead & Highgate, there was no clear majority candidate, and it is possible that, even after redistribution of the Lib Dems’ second votes, the race would still have been too close to call.

The AV system just provides an illusion of more fairness. 

DAVID R REED, NW3

Just a ruse?

• JOHN MacDonald is wrong to say that a fairer voting system is only a Lib Dem “ruse” (No Thanks, April 14).  

If that were so it’s an amazing ruse, one that involved inserting AV into the Labour 2010 manifesto, unbeknown to them, and orchestrating the “Take Back Parliament” mass rallies on Whitehall demanding political reform be part of the coalition agreement.

The truth is reformers have fought for fairer votes for a century and our first Labour government tried to introduce AV in 1930. Establishment figures are now trying to scare us from embracing change.

ANDREW RUTHERFORD
Regent Square, WC1

Real change

• THERE are three key positive reasons to vote Yes in the referendum:

1) AV will ensure MPs have to secure the support of 50 per cent of voters in their constituency to win. 

2) AV will put an end to tactical voting. Voters will be able to vote honestly for the candidates they think will do the best job, without having to worry about “wasting” their votes. 

Voters will have the chance to number the candidates in order of preference, to make sure that their vote is as effective as possible.

3) AV will mean there will be more marginal seats and fewer safe seats. This gives voters more power over the outcome of the election and means there will be fewer MPs who can sit back knowing they have a “job for life”.

AV is a small change that would make a big difference to democracy. 

DAVID ABRAHAMS
Broadhurst Gardens, NW6

Percentages

• IN the closest three- way fight of the last general election, I was within 841 votes of winning the London constituency of Hampstead & Kilburn.

I achieved just 31.2 per cent of the vote.

The winner got just 32.8 per cent.

I think it is wrong that anyone (including myself) can be elected when almost 70 per cent of the electorate did not vote for them and in fact turned out to vote for another candidate.

This is why I am supporting AV and why I urge all Londoners to do the same.

Giving the voter second and third preferences would enable people to be clear about whom they preferred most and increase the chance of selecting a candidate with over 50 per cent of the vote.

First-past-the-post is a broken system and AV is a sensible and necessary improvement that provides a mandate for those elected. 

ED FORDHAM
Candidate for Hampstead & Kilburn in May 2010

Challengers

• JAMES COLLINS is wrong to say that the only party that voters will want to put second if our voting system is reformed will be the Lib Dems (Alternative we wouldn’t want, April 7).

Voters have shown themselves capable of voting for parties of all different stripes: in some areas the Green Party are the challengers to Labour; the alternative to Labour in Barnsley was UKIP. Labour leader Ed Miliband said reforming the way we elect MPs will “make politicians’ lives more difficult, but we should welcome that”. I think that Miliband is right.

PETER McGINTY
Rossendale Way, NW1