Arguments in favour of AV poll system

UNLIKE Mal Rawnsley (Yorkshire Post, April 15), I feel that the views of Professor Antony Beevor (Yorkshire Post, April 9) do require detailed rebuttal.

Prof Beevor makes much of the unanimity of 25 historians in condemning the Alternative Vote. I would be impressed if these were 25 historians plucked randomly from Britain’s thousands of historians. But I suspect they were self-selecting on the basis of their political outlook.

He tells us that under AV some people would get more votes than others. This claim is often repeated, as by RJ Barnard (Letters, April 15), but that doesn’t bring it any closer to being true.

With AV, there are in effect several rounds of voting. We each get a vote in every round, unless our candidate is eliminated and we have turned down the invitation to nominate an alternative. But if we’ve refused to state any preference among the remaining candidates (that is, abstained), we can hardly complain at this.

One candidate is eliminated in each round. Obviously those whose candidate is eliminated need to switch their vote to a different candidate for the next round. Equally obviously, those whose candidate is still in can vote again for the same candidate. But they each most definitely get a vote in that following round.

Prof Beevor then devotes much attention to a critique of proportional representation. If we have a referendum on PR in my lifetime I expect to vote against it. The referendum on May 5 is about AV, a preference voting system, for which I shall be voting Yes. Prof Beevor tells us that many supporters of AV see it as a stepping stone. towards PR. He stops short of claiming that it actually is a step towards PR. In fact, many people are refusing to support AV because it is not a step towards PR. Go figure.

He finds a historical quotation suggesting that the opinions of those who support the smaller parties are worthless. It is supposedly good to have a system which excludes them from participating in the final decision between Labour and the Conservatives. He even speaks of denying oxygen to these smaller groups.

Does he want a monopoly not only of power, but also of ideas for the larger parties?

From: Ken Hartford, Durham Mews, Butt Lane, Beverley.

Fifty years ago, nobody could have guessed that one day a Green Party candidate would win a seat in Parliament for Central Brighton.

Amazingly, with the Alternative Voting being, at least, encouraged with the hope that a greater cross section of all communities will have a chance of individual votes making a difference, places like Beverley (traditionally either Conservative or Liberal) will be challenged by the Green Party and other “up and coming” parties which I think is far healthier for the country as a whole, especially as somebody pointed out, many people have given up voting altogether.

Now, there is a greater chance for “each way” bets to have an effect on the “race card”. Horses are part of Beverley’s traditionally profitable income. At a betting level the politics of this traditional town will be rather more interesting.

Elmet MP Graham Stuart’s predecessor did a great deal of damage to the image of the Conservative Party here and Mr Stuart has had to work extremely hard to maintain the popularity of the party. There is little doubt that he will retain his seat in this coming election, but “outsiders” often turn out to be very good jumpers.

From: EW Johnson, Allerton Grange Crescent, Leeds.

I HAVE just studied the booklet for the referendum. Applying some hypothetical voting percentages to examples of the alternative voting system, I now realise that it is undemocratic and everyone should vote “no” to this system.

On the present system of first past the post, a candidate getting 47 per cent of the votes cast would be elected over one obtaining 46 per cent of the vote. On the AV system because neither candidate has more than 50 per cent of the votes another round of counting is needed. If there is only one other candidate and all of those votes go to candidate B because of an anathema for voting for candidate A, candidate B would receive all the remaining 7 per cent of the votes giving 51 per cent of the votes and he would be elected. This is clearly undemocratic.

From: David Miller, Skippon Terrace, Thorner, Leeds.

RJ Barnard (Yorkshire Post, April 15) is wrong to say that Alternative Vote would give some voters more votes than others. In fact, all AV does is give voters more choice about how their single vote is used.

Imagine I go into a pub and ask for a pint of Black Sheep. The person behind the bar says that Black Sheep is no longer available and they won’t sell me any other beer I might choose. That’s First Past the Post.

More acceptable to me would be for the barperson to allow me to buy a pint of Copper Dragon. Not as good as Black Sheep in my opinion, but still acceptable. But I still have only one pint. That’s AV.

Keep this unit where it is

From: Stephanie Edwards, Park Crescent, Addingham, Ilkley.

AS an ex-breast cancer patient at Leeds General Infirmary, I am distressed to hear of proposals to close the Breast Unit there and move it to St James’s Hospital.

We have been fortunate in Leeds to have had a dedicated breast cancer ward since 1995, which was vigorously fought for. Since then, the Breast Unit has gone from strength to strength and is very highly regarded.

It is especially sad to think that it will close, because as recently as June 2009 a new purpose-built, state of the art Breast Care Ward, beautifully designed and furnished, was officially opened by Ronan Keating, the pop star.

Patients are nursed in a tranquil and comfortable atmosphere with wonderful care, and the dedication and skilled nursing care given by Sister Sue Callum and all her specialist staff is held in high regard. Patients are given one-to-one counselling before and after surgery, which helps in preventing complications in aftercare.

At present there are 18 beds for breast patients in LGI, but if the move goes ahead there will only be 10 beds within a 24-bedded general surgical ward, which means there will not be the specialist nurses available for breast patients.

We campaigned for a specialist unit, and got it! Now we want to keep it where it is now.