Next, it is still possible that some MPs would be elected on a minority of votes because voters are free to indicate only their first preference, thus ‘turning AV into a messy version of FPTP.’ I don’t see this. Even if some people choose to indicate only one preference AV still allows for multiple preferences and for that to determine the winner. It is a fundamentally different system, and it would only work like FPTP if everyone marked a ‘1’ only. The major difference, however, is that under AV 50% is needed, rather than a minority election being possible. (Incidentally, if everyone in a constituency marked only a ‘1’ and no-one had 50%, what happens under AV?)
Third, ‘if there is a run-off, a carefully considered first preference carries the same weight as more tepid second or even third choices.’ Why assume that second or third choices are chosen any less enthusiastically or carefully? That is slightly disingenuous writing.
Fourth, ‘it encourages voters to flirt with extremists, knowing they can make centrist parties their second preference.’ I doubt that any of the really undesirable parties (e.g. the BNP) would do well out of AV and since they still manage to make gains under FPTP I don’t see that as a convincing reason against reform.
Finally, they worry that this referendum will ‘exhaust the national appetite for reform’ without achieving PR. I think their concern here leads to the opposite conclusion. If people vote No, those against reform will be able to use this referendum to argue that nobody wants reform to the electoral system. If the Yes vote wins, there is still the possibility for further change, especially given the government’s attempts at further constitutional reform (including introducing PR into an elected House of Lords).
Recent Comments