I've not really become terribly connected to the 'Yes to Fairer Votes' campaign, although I'll be voting yes on 5 May. But my attention has been drawn to the latest outpouring from the Director of the 'No2AV' campaign, Mark Wallace. Mark has form, of course. As the voice of the Taxpayers' Alliance, he was prone to selectivity when it came to which of the facts he emphasised, but he did establish a reputation for knowing his subject.
It would seem, however, that he isn't quite so in command of electoral systems, as evidenced by a particularly shoddy posting on his blog. At least, when prodded quite hard, he acknowledges the weakness of his argument - representing something from a comedy drama as a reputable example of the effects of the Alternative Vote system is either mendacious or lazy.
However, Dizzy, apparently one of the more prominent Conservative bloggers, picks it up and carries it further. The temptation is to use an example from 'Father Ted', where Ted tries to explain perspective to Dougal - "big... far away...".However, courtesy says that I should presume some intellect in my adversary.
So, we'll take Mark Wallace's example. Six votes are cast, each for a different candidate. Under 'first past the post', the candidates and their agents are brought together, and lots are drawn to decide the winner. Easy, thus far (you are following this, aren't you, Mark and Dizzy?
Under AV, all choices with no votes are eliminated, including yellow, and the second preferences redistributed amongst the remaining live candidates. But there are no valid transfers, so all six candidates are tied. And you'll never guess what happens next, guys. Yes, the candidates and their agents are brought together, and lots are drawn to decide the winner. So, in the most freakish of outcomes, the voters are no worse off under AV than they would have been under 'first past the post'!
Call me old-fashioned if you will, but a piece of legislation which leaves nobody worse off than before is a good thing, isn't it? Or do I need to run through that again for you, gentlemen?...
No comments:
Post a Comment