I read today two related articles published earlier last week. One in The Sun by Baroness Sayeeda WarsiWhy a vote for AV is a vote for BNP and a response to that on Left Foot Forward – Warsi makes hypocritical claim on BNP pandering
The first featuring said Sayeeda Warsi having her statements misrepresented by The Sun – she doesn’t say that a vote for AV is a vote for the BNP at all – no, she says that under AV, there is a side effect that minority parties, such as the BNP, are more likely to have their lower preferences recounted if no outright winner is elected, and this situation is likely to lead to candidates ‘pandering’ to the BNP vote in order to pick up second preference votes. Warsi concludes from this that it’s better to stick with the tried and tested approach of ‘first past the post’
I disagree with the reasoning which she uses to reach her conclusions – flaws in AV do not excuse the flaws in FPTP – which are many.
She does make an important point though – one which Will Straw’s article on Left Forward doesn’t seem to have grasped. Will appears to assume that Sayeeda is repeating the oft quoted myth which says that minority parties are more likely to win under AV than FPTP – Will’s right to challenge this – it’s spurious at best, and probably inaccurate – but it’s not what she’s saying.
I also feel that highlighting her courting of the potential BNP vote in her previous campaign in Dewsbury, using what he tags as “dog whistle” literature, further misses the point. It also fails to contextualise her tactic – I know Dewsbury very well, and my feeling is that a female Asian candidate in Dewsbury, speaking directly to people planning to vote BNP, and telling them not to, is a brave strategy indeed – I don’t support her, but I do respect her for that.
To explain Sayeeda Warsi’s point, which I feel illustrates a fundamental failing of the Alternative Vote system, consider this :-
Suppose there was an election under AV which had 4 candidates – Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and BNP.
Let’s suppose for the sake of argument, that the first choice results were : Lab 21,000; Con 16,000, Lib Dem 7,000, and BNP, 4,000
After the first round of voting the BNP are eliminated – no change for them : under First Past the Post – they wouldn’t win, and they certainly don’t win now.
So on to second preferences – but whose second preferences count ?
Most of the Labour and Conservative second preferences would be likely to be for the Lib-Dems – and most Lib Dems’ second preferences would presumably be for Conservative or Labour.
Only their second preferences don’t count – they haven’t been eliminated – so don’t get redistributed !
No ! The only second preferences cast at this point would be the BNP votes – and they have it within their power to either see Labour home and dry, or to force a third count, and the uncertainty of a redistribution of Lib-Dem votes.
So the party that comes last – the party that fewer people want to win than any other – is effectively the party whose voters get to decide the outcome of the election – which in the run up to the election, means that politicians will feel under pressure to appease minority parties to pick up second preferences.
Surely this is unfair ?
How can the least popular party be given the first opportunity to select their second choice ?
Please explain it to me – have I made a mistake with my interpretation of AV ?
I really hope I have – let me know.
So far in this campaign issues like this seem to be left un-addressed by either side. I’ve no fondness for FPTP – but from where I stand AV appears to be just as deeply flawed – I really don’t know how to vote. It’s like heads you lose, tails you don’t win.
Point me to the persuasive arguments please – not the four legs good-two legs bad bickering.
- Sayeeda Warsi plays the race card to campaign against electoral reform (liberalconspiracy.org)
- Adopting the alternative vote would be a very British revolution | Andrew Rawnsley (guardian.co.uk)
- Warsi makes hypocritical claim on BNP pandering (leftfootforward.org)
- AV ‘will bring in fascism’ (thesun.co.uk)
- AV campaign gets personal as Chris Huhne blasts Baroness Warsi (guardian.co.uk)
- Luvvies line up to tell you how to vote on AV (dailymail.co.uk)
- Debunked: The latest No2AV ‘AV/BNP’ spin (leftfootforward.org)
PS : Interesting how WordPress applied automatic links to Lib Dems, but not Labour, Conservative or BNP – You know where to look for them !
Tom Harris’s blog today What about the blogs? Poses questions relating to the supposed plans by News International to introduce subscription fees for all its main titles (including The Sun and The Times) Rupert Murdoch plans charge for all news websites by next summer
And raises the question of what that will do to the blogosphere – whose habit of linking back to other sites – particularly in the mainstream media – is a staple diet of many blogs (mine included).
I think I can safely say that this isn’t likely to happen. The whole point of the new media technologies is that they are interdependent, and more or less free on a per article basis. (but not of course in total – I pay £20 per month for my ISP – some pay less, some much more)
Murdoch is right when he says that investigative journalism doesn’t come cheap. It’s certainly true that newspapers and their websites are not “not for profit” organisations, or charities – and that they have to make a crust somehow.
Well they’ll do it by the tried and tested ways of advertising, product placement & freebies with hard copies, and in the case of News International for one, selling the internet bandwidth which the punters use to surf on into their sites.
They’ll do it by merging the internet with their satellite channels, by merging their pay sports channels with their internet sites, and by selling the coverage of local football games in far flung rural locations, to homesick expats in further flung urban locations.
But if web users are faced with charges at the Times, then they’ll go to the Telegraph, or the Guardian. If they’re charged at the Sun they’ll go to the Mirror. If they’re charged at all of them, they’ll start going to foreign newspapers.
In short they will find a way round it. In just the same way as people found a way to record the Top 40 from their radio cassette recorders in the 70’s; in just the same way as they found ways to distribute MP3s in the 90’s and noughties; in just the same way as they moved to Firefox when the Microsoft product didn’t do what they wanted. They will find a way round whatever obstacles are put in place.
Now if Rupert Murdoch was really serious about doing something different, he’d be thinking about paying the bloggers – because that’s where most of the news seems to be coming from these days.
In all seriousness, if he (for instance) bought out WordPress, then he could offer a free blogging set up (as now), have a ‘posting on’ clause built into the small print – which gave his publications first dibs on the best stuff. He could sell a premium service, which gave access to flashy widgets with feeds from News International sources to place on their sites – making their blogs look professional, and giving further exposure and traffic to his own. And yes – paying the good bloggers to keep on doing it – provided of course they let News International syndicate the copy.
Whatever he may have blurted out in a moment of ire, I’m pretty sure that these thoughts haven’t escaped News International.