From the BBC, AV referendum bill clears first Commons hurdle (mildly interesting article, does what it says on the tin).
Opinions on this were divided at the UKIP conference, but I'm with William Dartmouth on this one - having the Alternative Vote has got to be good for democracy. My theory being that the larger parties are very much influenced by how many votes the smaller parties get (even if they are only second votes and even if those parties have no MPs). If the Greens start eating into the larger parties' votes, then the larger parties will start doing environmental stuff; if the BNP do too well, then the larger parties start looking more seriously at capping immigration; and if UKIP get a lot of votes there is a vague hope that the UK government will adopt a slightly more EU sceptic stance.
AV probably won't help any UKIP MPs get elected (so what, neither will sticking with FPTP), and it's not my idea of a least-bad electoral system* but hey. One of the things that every UKIP candidate hears is "I prefer your party's policies, but I have to vote Tory to keep Labour out" from the 'tactical voters' and when it comes to it, most people don't really like casting protest votes - UKIP got 2,500,000 votes at the 2009 EU Parliament election but only 900,000 at the UK General Election a year later.
So even if UKIP don't get all the first votes of the 'tactical voters' referred to above, it will certainly get a lot of their second votes - it's like a risk free protest vote, and that is what the larger parties will be looking at in future.
* Which would be multi-member constituencies, with one vote per voter for one named candidate, big argument - how many members from each constituency?)
Tuesday, 7 September 2010
A little bit of good news
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Mark,
I think that the more likely scenario is that the protest voter will list a "no-hoper" as their first choice and vote for "mainstream X to keep that mainstream bugger Y out" as their second.
On the basis that the first preference will have no effect on the outcome but will demonstrate their dissatisfaction (although wouldn't it be fun if enough people followed that strategy...), so that the second comes into play as a least worst mainstream option.
VFTS, that will all get VERY interesting.
How many of the 20% of voters who say that they prefer UKIP but worry about 'wasting' their vote will give UKIP their first preference, and how many will give UKIP their second preference?
Your guess is as good as mine.
It's the only hope for smaller parties to break through the way that people vote for "least revolting option of 2" duopoly that we currently have.
I'm going to be quite fired up to knock door-to-door about it if necessary. It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that once done won't be undone (because only hardcore party voters will vote for FPTP to return).
JT, that's what puzzles me about the opposition to AV. If some people just want to cast their first vote, then they are free to do so, they have lost nothing.
MW, as I have posted previously, it is the fact that the 'choice' is dictated by our politcal elite - ie control of the population. If they were true to their wish to give us a say on a change to the voting system, they would present all options with an explanation of the pros and cons for each - and then let us decide.
How the electorate would use any form of proportional system viz-a-viz Ukip will be influenced by how much Ukip are able to 'professionalise' their presentation and internal administration - for the three are linked. The better the last two, the better for Ukip in an election will be the first.
Interesting post and that linked too, and worthy of further discussion.
Post a Comment