Have the Old and Sad judges just mucked up AV?
To: Andrew George, George Eustice, Sarah Newton, Dan Rogerson, Sheryll Murray and Stephen Gilbert
Dear all,
I'm trying to fathom the implications of the Oldham & Saddleworth election court ruling for any new voting system, such as the Alternative Vote, which might replace First-Past-The-Post next year.
I understand how AV works if there are no post-count challenges - but what if the candidate who comes third is challenged by a candidate who comes fourth (and the first-round candidate is still short of 50%)? Won't that make the re-distribution of losing votes almost impossible until after the courts have ruled? And, therefore, the temptation to field "spoiling" candidates whose intention is merely to disrupt the election by publishing false leaflets about each other may prove irresistible.
I appreciate the slogan "make every vote count" has a certain appeal - but perhaps Oldham & Saddleworth has provided a reason why not every vote should count!
I know you recently sat through days of debate on the Bill so I'm hoping you'll have the answer.
Many thanks
bw
Graham
I'm ´óÏó´«Ã½ Radio Devon’s Graham Smith, blogging on news, views and some fresh insights into West Country life, particularly the way government works locally and nationally.
Comment number 1.
At 9th Nov 2010, the-real-truth wrote:This is no different to FPTP. It isn't only the winner who has to be honest!
Any candidate telling lies about the LibDem candidate could have been prosecuted in the same way, and the election re-run.
Re running the election is not just because Woolas is barred - it is because the person lied about was only 100 votes away from winning, so the lies could have influenced the result.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 9th Nov 2010, Ben Donnelly wrote:A court ruling would hold things up whatEVER the voting system, but it would take effect after the final count so having AV wouldn't really make any difference here compared to FPTP.
In any case, these very special circumstances are not a reason to hang onto a hugely inadequate and unfair voting system and kill out the only offer of change we're likely to have in a very long time. If you think AV isn't change enough, then you still need to start by taking what's been offered and THEN asking for more.
In fact all criticisms I've seen so far of AV (and yes there are some, especially from a PR point of view), are equally criticisms of FPTP. AV doesn't solve every FPTP problem, but it improves on many, some significantly, and where it doesn't improve it certainly doesn't make anything worse. This is enough reason alone to choose AV over FPTP.
If the current system were AV and the referendum was about changing to FPTP almost NO-ONE would choose to change.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 9th Nov 2010, Muirchertach wrote:AV makes no difference to the Oldham & Saddleworth ruling. The whole election is going to be re-run under whatever system was used.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 9th Nov 2010, Peter Tregantle wrote:Mousetrap all over again, ignoring the house makes the rules. Whilst it may in theory be so, are we saying games are being played, is this just a small part of grander scheme, the only way to find out is to sit back and watch the play unfold, is this not politics in 2010?
If its anything like the west-end show expect this to run and run
Not point getting flustered now
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 9th Nov 2010, Graham Smith wrote:In Old & Sad, the gap between winner and second place was 103 votes. Under FPTP the gap between 3rd and 4th, or 4th and 5th, or 5th and 6th etc could not have changed the result. Under AV, however, the gap between losing candidates does matter because of the way their second/third/fourth preferences might be re-distributed. If these losing candidates can challenge each other, does that not open up a whole new can of worms? Some of the general election results in Cornwall this year were very close. A good time to train as an election lawyer?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 9th Nov 2010, Ben Donnelly wrote:Are you suggesting that it's ok for candidates to be unscrupulous as long as we have FPTP?
Unless anyone breaks the rules the only thing that can be challenged is the counting. Counting is easy enough to verify.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 9th Nov 2010, Andrew Jacks wrote:Graham who wrote the letter?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 9th Nov 2010, Graham Smith wrote:6 (Ben):
I'm certainly not suggesting it's OK for candidates to be unscrupulous under any circumstances! I'm just asking how, under the AV system, you sort out the re-distributed votes of losing candidates if they are all taking each other to court.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 9th Nov 2010, Muirchertach wrote:Graham,
The whole election is being re-run. The past votes don't matter any more, not in FPTP nor in AV. The whole thing is non issue, everyone will vote again and quite likely some will even vote for candidates different parties from their previous vote.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 10th Nov 2010, Peter Tregantle wrote:For your conspiracy to work would take two parties working in Alliance Graham, with the perpetrators humiliated next time round, on those grounds alone I doubt it would ever happen, but accept games could be being played to scupper the vote on AV before it is even agreed
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)