Voting system is to keep the elite in power

WHAT a shocking view of AV put together by Anthony Beevor (Yorkshire Post, April 9). As usual with people who don’t understand what true democracy really is, it was long on emotion and short on facts.

Our current “free and fair electoral system” that he attempts to defend is nowhere near as free and fair as it would be with AV. The first past the post (FPTP) system is elitist and designed to keep the establishment in power with as little accountability as possible.

It is no surprise that hypocrites who say they believe in fairness – like most Conservative MPs and lots of Labour ones – want to retain the current system. This is because FPTP is in their self-interest, but not in that of the electorate, of course.

At the May 2010 General Election, it took about 284,000 votes to elect a Green MP, 119,000 votes to elect a Liberal Democrat MP, 34,000 votes to elect a Conservative MP and 33,000 votes to elect a Labour MP. What sort of person thinks this is fair?

Under AV, no longer will MPs with minority support in so-called safe seats be able to take their Parliamentary seat for granted. They will have to appeal to a much broader spectrum and work harder than they do now. AV will also end the need to vote tactically, halt the increase in voter apathy and produce less confrontational, more constructive government.

The opponents of AV have been scaremongering about the BNP. Perhaps they could explain why the BNP itself is against AV. Under AV extremist parties like the BNP will be worse off, not better off. That’s because very few people will make them second choice. Then there have been the misrepresentations about the costs of AV and the refusal by the “No” campaign to say enough about its funding.

Australia has had AV for 100 years. FPTP is woefully inadequate and doesn’t pass the simplest test of democracy which is: “What do the majority of people want?” Twice in the past 50 years the party with the most votes across the country didn’t even end up in government. How fair and democratic is that?

On May 5 we, the people, have a once-in-a-generation choice to move towards a fairer voting system. It would be a tragedy if this opportunity for change for the better were missed. Vote “Yes” on May 5. Otherwise we are doomed to more of the same with only ourselves to blame.

From: Barbara Fletcher, Brecks Lane, Kirk Sandall, Doncaster.

MY family have been discussing the referendum on the voting system. The published information does not answer our questions, and even the campaigns do not provide a means of having questons answered.

We created a hypothetical election between five candidates, Black, Brown, Green, Grey, and White.

On the first count Black had 30 per cent of votes, Brown 25, Green 20, Grey 15 and White 10.

White’s votes are then redistributed, which does not give any candidate more than 50 per cent of the total votes cast. We understand the process so far. Grey’s votes are now redistributed. What happens to the voters who prefer White, who has already been eliminated?

Still no candidate has 50 per cent of the vote, but as both the later preferences of people who originally voted for Grey and White are heavily in favour of Green, he now has a higher percentage of votes than Brown. Is it Brown (the current third) or Green (the original third) whose votes are redistributed?

We would like to have a precise explanation of how the second and third (and subsequent) distribution of votes is carried out. Is it laid down by law, or by a decision of the Electoral Commission which has been fully publicised beforehand, or left to individual returning officers to decide as the need arises?

As some voters will not complete a full order of preference, it is possible that no candidate will reach 50 per cent of the original vote. Does this mean no one is elected?

Frankly, whatever the short-comings of first past the post, AV will presumably only be successful in annoying even more people.

From: Len Fincham, Warrels Road, Bramley, Leeds.

IT would seem Graham Buttenshaw and John Collins (Yorkshire Post, April 11) would prefer an AV system rather than the existing method and refer to the AV system working in Australia.

Historically, coalition governments do not last their destined term in power as bickering causes intermittent and very slow government. New elections are then necessary, as in the case of France and Italy during the early post-war period, both of which had coalitions.

In the case of Australia, they sensibly made voting a “must” with a considerable fine if you didn’t vote in elections. In Britain, AV might work better if we too compelled people to vote, otherwise most couldn’t care less and this is why we have very poor polls. AV systems would also allow fringe parties such as BNP to nudge into Parliament whereas under the old system they would find it almost impossible.

Compulsion is now highly possible. With a recent census of the population we may know just how many people live here but it appears to me that the Liberal Democrat party just doesn’t have the following and is envious of Labour and the Conservatives. It would change if everyone voted, I am sure.

I fail to understand anyone who would vote Labour after the colossal mistakes they have made over the last 10 years or so. They did it in the 1960s too, requiring drastic reforms to get us out of trouble. Denis Healey then had to go to the IMF.

Britain, basically an industrial country, has always needed a Parliament that is directed to assist in creating wealth rather than just spending money we haven’t got. We must increase our income and not spend money we have not earned.

I would like to see the Lib Dems as the other main party but under the present, well-tried and tested electoral system and with a much higher grade of politicians in general. Looking at the present Labour front bench, I just shudder. Britain over the last 20 years has in general lacked politicians of high moral integrity, wisdom and an ever present sense of duty to the country.