With AV, the candidates don’t go for soggy centre

Published: 28 April, 2011

• JONATHAN Glanz’s letter (AV lends power to the extremists, Letters, April 15) smacks of hysteria. If AV was going to let in all kinds of horrible extremists, I doubt if both the BNP and Socialist Workers Party would be opposing it.

It’s more democratic because it means more broad-based MPs and hopefully more candidates, with the “vote-splitting” argument at an end – candidates standing on a clear ideological platform rather than competing for the “soggy centre”.

However, Alternative Vote is not enough. I am in favour of a full electoral package including not only AV and fixed-term general elections but PR (proportional representation) and equal power for the Lords, STV (single transferable vote) for local authorities, the replacement of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies with old county councils, and referenda on major issues.

I cynically surmise that my fellow reformers’ lack of keenness on the last of these may be connected with their anticipating not liking the results when we vote on capital punishment, immigration, or the EU.

As this would give too much power to political parties, let us also have “people’s peers”. Let us each write in the name of someone we consider worthy of a place in the Upper House and anyone getting over 100,000 votes be given a term there. Would Lord Branson or Baroness Lumley have less to contribute than party hacks?

Yes, I know my policy would mean “extremist” minority parties in Parliament if they got enough votes – and what of it? Every substantially held viewpoint should be represented in Parliament.

I do not favour replacing the divine right of kings with the divine right of “moderates”.

MARK TAHA
Venner Road, SE26