It’s better to lose under a fair electoral system

Published: 28 April, 2011

• ON May 5 the country votes in a referendum to scrap our current system for electing MPs, and replacing it with the Alternative Vote. 

At the last election I was the Conservative candidate in Hampstead & Kilburn, and lost to Glenda Jackson by the agonising margin of just 42 votes out of 53,000 – the closest result in the mainland UK. 

Some people have speculated that I might have won under AV, and asked if I therefore support AV.

The answer is emphatically no. 

I would prefer to lose under a fair system, than win under an unfair one. 

Although it was agonising to lose by such a small margin, at least the voting was simple and fair. 

Each elector had one vote. The person with the most votes was Glenda, not me. 

She won. 

That was a fair outcome. 

For me, the main point of a voting in a democracy is to choose and to remove governments. 

AV will lead to more hung parliaments where no party has a majority. This means that governments will get chosen after an election by the Lib Dems in a behind-closed-doors deal, rather than by the public at the ballot box. 

AV will dramatically reduce the public’s ability to throw out the government. 

This is the most precious power voters have in a democracy. 

At a local level, why should a close seat like Hampstead & Kilburn get decided by the fifth or sixth preference votes of BNP voters? 

Why should a BNP voter’s sixth preference carry the same weight as a Labour or Conservative voter’s first preference?  

Under AV someone initially coming third could end up winning on the back of fringe party voters’ fifth or sixth preferences. 

The No campaign is cross-party. 

Besides almost every Conservative MP, major trade unions and over half of Labour MPs and peers are backing the No campaign. 

So are academics and non-party figures.  

The Lib Dems demanded this referendum as the price of entering the coalition, despite having described AV as a “miserable” system just a short time earlier. 

They asked for this referendum for reasons of their own narrow party interest.  

We should not adopt a bad voting system just because it helps one party.  

Please vote No on May 5.

CHRIS PHILP

Freedom?

• WILL AV give me “more freedom”?

If I want to make a considered and informed choice about which party to support, then I don’t also have the “power” to choose another party’s alternative and conflicting policies as well. 

And even if I did, it certainly wouldn’t give me “more power” (rather the contrary) if I were to see my original candidate overtaken and displaced by a second-choice one – exactly what the Lib Dems are hoping would happen.

JAMES COLLINS
Belsize Grove, NW3

AV mob

• NICK Clegg describes the opponents of the Alternative Vote as “a right-wing clique who want to keep things the way they are”.

Sound like a description of his government.

RICHARD COTTON
Weavers Way, NW1

Choices

• I DISAGREE with David Reed  that “…all it does is allow the second thoughts of the third-placed party to decide the final result,” (Alternative Vote just gives illusion of fairness, April 21).

The third-placed party will not decide anything – the people will decide. It will be down to candidates to work hard to win everybody’s votes, and if they fail to impress other voters, they won’t win.

David might belittle “second thoughts” but voters will think long and hard about who they give their second preferences to. Why should MPs get away with only have to appeal to a third of voters?

LEE BAKER
Regent Square, WC1

Guesswork

• MANY of the comments on the first-past-the-post versus the AV systems have come from those who have experienced only the former and their views often seem to represent a mixture of ignorance, prejudice and guesswork. 

Many are concerned with issues such as is AV fair; does it give more votes to some people than others; is it too difficult for the great British public to understand; will it lead to weak government?

As an adult I have lived for around 25 years under each system and voted several times in both. As an ordinary voter, the main difference I found was that the AV system was fun, at least in my case.  I enjoyed weighing up the relative merits of the various individual candidates as well as their parties in order to mark them 1,2,3 etc. This is not difficult to do, as the vast numbers who did the treble chance in the football pools seem to demonstrate.

Anything that is fun surely must encourage people to get out and vote, a major plus for any democratic society. We know from TV  that people are very willing to vote as long as they have an interest and feel they can make a difference.

The AV system is by no means perfect but it is a step in the right direction. 

DR KEVIN BUCKNALL
King Henry’s Road, NW3