Monday’s Letters: AV does not break the principle of one person one vote

CONTRARY to the suggestion of some commentators in opposition to the Alternative Vote system to be proposed in the forthcoming referendum, AV does not break the principle of One Person One Vote, it does not threaten democracy with an “extremist’s charter”, and it should not automatically lead to a greater likelihood of coalition government.

In the current system, it is quite frequent to find when there are several candidates in a constituency ballot, that the elected candidate has obtained far less support than 50 per cent of the votes cast, let alone 50 per cent of the electorate.

It is customary to ignore non-voters on the basis that their decision to opt out deems them to be content with whatever result is declared.

This may be procedurally convenient, but it is hardly democratically representative: “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.”

One of the main reasons why constituents decline to vote is the feeling that their (minority) view is not going to affect the result; that their vote would be wasted. Merely making voting compulsory, as some suggest, does nothing to address the problem of perceived wasted votes.

In the AV system as proposed, voters have the opportunity to express alternative preferences, so anyone whose first preference is not supported by many others can still play some potential part in the eventual result, even though they may be disappointed by their first choice candidate’s failure. It is quite reasonable to run a system in which one can say “if I can’t have X, I’ll join those who support Y”.

From: Patrick Herring, Larkhill Close, Leeds.

EW Johnson (Yorkshire Post, April 20) finds AV undemocratic, but his example shows First Past The Post is undemocratic. That’s the problem the referendum is trying to solve.

He has A on 47 per cent, B on 46 per cent and C on 7 per cent. None of these have 50 per cent which is what you need to have a majority, none of them democratically represents this example constituency.

Saying FPTP is simple and decisive in returning A is just admitting it makes a mistake without even a shrug.

With AV you win by being the first to show a majority. If C’s policies are closer to B’s than to A’s it is likely C’s alternatives will fall to B much more than to A, so B wins by being the first to show a majority.

A never had a majority despite being closer than B initially. That’s democratic.

Perhaps people are worried that these second and third preferences aren’t as whole-hearted as the first preferences. Perhaps they ought not to be seen as equivalent. I tend to agree with that. But pretending that a candidate represents a whole constituency with less than 50 per cent support from them is a lie. So I go with the lesser of those two evils.

From: Peter Clegg, Brookside, Witton Gilbert, Durham.

IF you want a particular person or party to represent you in Parliament, why on earth would you cast a vote for a second or third candidate?

The fault with the present system is that not enough people take the trouble to cast their vote come election time. Those who don’t, of course, can have no complaint.

The fact is though, no matter how many people vote, inevitably some will still be represented by a person or party they didn’t vote for and it matters not whether it be FPTP or AV.

From: G Marsden, Buxton Avenue, Heanor, Derby.

IT is written into the English constitution “one person, one vote” . So let us take an hypothetical example of a constituent of 100 eligible voters – 45 vote for Labour; 35 vote Conservative, 20 vote Lib Dem. Using AV there is no winner.

So, when the Lib Dem voters papers are inspected, they all had the Conservative as their second choice. Thus the new totals read Labour 45, Conservative 55. The Conservative candidate now wins.

However, when analysed, it can be said that the Lib Dem voters have voted twice while the Labour and Conservative voters have voted only once. Which contravenes the constitution.

From: Bernard Robinson, Midland Terrace, Hellifield, Nr. Skipton.

AFTER reading the letters about AV and listening to discussions, I have come to the conclusion that most of the people who are in favour of the Yes vote are not the get up and go types, they are the long-winded wafflers, so I will be voting No.