Under Alternative Vote the BNP’s Voters Could Swing 35 Seats
Research out today from the No to AV campaign suggests that in the region of 35 constituencies could have their outcomes determined by the second preferences of BNP voters. This is the unwelcome empowerment that the AV system brings to democracy.
There is nothing new about the idea of an Alternative Voting system. When the idea was last mooted in 1931, Winston Churchill spoke up against it precisely because “the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates.” Churchill said AV “adds new features of caprice and uncertainty to the conduct of each individual election… Imagine making the representation of great constituencies dependent on the second preferences of the hindmost candidates. The hindmost candidate would become a personage of considerable importance, and the old phrase, ‘Devil take the hindmost’ will acquire a new significance.” As with so many things, Winston saw the danger to democracy clearly.
Source: NO2AV research summary here [PDF].
Excellent news. Nearly 1% representation, less than the level of support nationally but there you go.
You’re turning in to a Warsi.
Can’t understand why you are against the AV Guido. The monopoly of the big two parties is under threat and that is no bad thing.
As for scaremongering and using the BNP to promote an argument that is pathetic.
Yes, you’re correct, the monopoly will be broken (you could argue it is already). What we will have is a clutch of Lib Dem MPs elected by second choice votes deciding who the government should be, kingmakers in perpetuity. Quite often they will be placed third on peoples first choices and win by virtue of their being the electors least hated candidate.
This will be a new monopoly.
Why ? Just convince people that the best way to change the shysters we already have is to not put a vote for any of the main 3 parties !
I certainly will not be – the LibLabCon could be destroyed if we can get this message across !
Mmmm living and working in the “Peoples Republic of China” I can honestly say, the “Yes” vote can only be good. Look at the last 13 years of those Shhhiitts!! Social engineering of the ONE party system…. And you want more!!!!!!
maybe because the only thing it will do is undermine the tories (as losing limp dems will get their second vote for the greens or liebour giving us a neverending lab/lib government, well at least until we get the inevitable islamc government unless we do something about it.
one person, ONE vote is the foundation of our country why would anyone want to change that to some eurofudge type electoral system especially ukip who who want to get us out of the eu mire not drive us further in.
Can’t understand why you are against the AV Guido. The monopoly of the big two parties is under threat and that is no bad thing.
As for scaremongering and using the B&P to promote an argument that is pathetic.
+1
+2
Quite right.
Hardly a monopoly since the Lib Dems are now in coalition with the Conservatives.
If you want more of that vote for AV.
UKIP ????? Ah yes, it’s April Fool’s Day.
If you are gong to invoke the spirit of Winny then I dare say that his views on muslims and islam would be more closely aligned to the BNP than our current bunch of treacherous quislings.
The research makes one huge assumption – that BNP voters can not only count but write numbers and would be willing to do so rather than just sign their name in their usual way as they do at the moment.
Moreover, the research makes assumptions about how second preferences would be made and who knows how some (most?) voters think?
The NO to AV campaign is relying on lies and twisted truths so much a neutral voter can only assume there is no real argument against AV other than ‘Please don’t make my seat marginal, I was promised a job for life’. Is that really good enough grounds for keeping the barely democratic status quo?
BNP voters. Or, as we call ‘em around here, Labour switchers.
Do you really think FPTP prevents these people from infecting the voter bases of the main parties?
Seems a bit desperate to deliberately mention the BNP. Most BNP 2nd preferences will go to Labour I suspect, and most UKIP second preferences will go to the Tories.
Most BNP second preferences will go to labour – find out who the real supporters are.
That was meant to be ironic and should have had – reality – most second preference second votes will go to the conservatives.
Wanna bet ! On my weekly publication I am getting a good response on the idea of voting YES to AV but not nominating any of the Big 3 at all ! This way they can NEVER get our votes transferred to them !
maybe if they did
Mass murderers like Moosehead kouso wouldn’t be so keen on retiring here !
How short sighted it is to even think of arresting Mooso Kooso at this time.
We should grant him luxury and good living so that he can pursuade all his colleagues to come here too. Then we should nick the lot of them.
There’s a Moussa Koussa loussa in the houssa
I’ve got to play at his citizenship gig, lordy lordy!
John Cowan (the disgraced Labour candidate for South East Cambs) is supporting the YES AV vote! Why? Because AV will let tw@ts like him into office as well! Cowan is standing for office again in the Local Elections.
>dependent on the second preferences of the hindmost candidates.
The second preferences of voters, not candidates. Are you sure Winston is talking about AV as it is proposed in the coming referendum? Seems unlikely.
He was.
This just completely misrepresents the facts because it’s impossible to measure how many seats are swung by the tactical voting of bnp supporters under fptp! I bet it’s more than that number you gave above. And in any case, in almost every seat the main voters who swing the vote would be from the three main parties, and by appealing to the bnp the main parties would lose more second preferences than they’d win, so it simply wouldn’t be in anyone’s interest to appeal to them. How many lib dems would give their second preference to labour if they became racist in an attempt to appeal to the bnp? Answer: none
Once again Guido and the no to av campaign can’t admit there are no arguments against AV, only knee jerk conservatism.
If you actually read the research, instead of spouting kee-jerk bollocks, you would discover something startling – in 7 out of 10 seats the second preferences of the 3 main party voters would not even be counted.
Yeah because about 1/3 of seats already have over 50% and in the rest you are right that smaller parties would swing it, but obviously the most marginal and thus targeted seats would be swung primarily by the second preferences of one of the main parties. For isntance at the last election my constituency was the second most marginal seat in the country between Labour and Conservatives with 1% seperating them, and the Lib Dem vote was 16%. The BNP and UKIP vote were insignificant in comparison, so who are they gonna try and appeal to?
Plus you still haven’t addressed the point of how many seats are swung by BNP tactical votes in FPTP. Very small parties are likely to have the most tactical voters, so it seems that FPTP is even more likely to have marginal seats swung by smaller party extremeists tactical voting than under AV.
3/10 is far more than 35 seats Guido. My argument still stands, by appealing to the BNP the main parties would lose far more seats than they’d win.
These are two different issues.
But elections are not decided in safe seats. They are decided in marginals which are ‘triangulated’ and electors are bribed and postal voting becomes very fashionable.
The AV campaign – for or against – is a cynical ploy to preserve the political class. All the arguments seem to be about who benefits – in terms of which party. Nobody mentions why it is good or bad for the people or for democracy.
The real issue is that our democracy is diseased by corruption. Whatever the voting procedure, the thieves and liars will continue to cling to the power that they feel entitled to.
AV was a cynical attempt to throw crumbs at the libdems.
They probably cynically gobbled them up thinking “better than nothing”.
How are they different issues?
The point is Guido, all this appealing to extremeists is complete and utter bullcrap, because if you do that you will lose the second preferences of moderates who would swing FAR FAR more seats than just 35. Thus appealing to extremists isn’t going to happen. Unless you can come up with a convincing counter point then I shall be forced to conclude that perhaps you really are just knee jerk opposing this, rather than actually taking a rational view point…
“How many lib dems would give their second preference to labour if they became racist in an attempt to appeal to the bnp?”
How many Lib-Dems left to join labour because they could not compromise on their party’s policies? In spite of the fact that liberal policy was for PR and labour’s polices are diametrically opposed to the Liberals on ID cards, Iraq, Tax allowances, PR, schools, military etc…
What is most ironic and idiotic, is that these liberals, who supported PR as an election system, were so opposed to the compromises that this system necessitates, (due to it guaranteeing coalition government), that they dump all their core values and beliefs to join labour in protest of the liberals actually getting into power in a coalition and having to compromise on policy.
WTF???
With that sort of “shoot yourself in the face” un-logic braindead fuckwittery being displayed by liberals, I would not be at all surprised if liberals backed labour for being as racist as the BNP!
Anyone who supports a party will either have to swallow shit they hadn’t expected, or be disappointed. Scrub that, both.
I wasn’t using that as a specific example that I am considering or anything. If you’d like to know i’d probably vote Lib Dems 1st preference and conservatives 2nd preference under AV. I was just making the point that adopting properly and openly extreme policies is unlikely to win you more second preferences than you’d lose
It seems you are right, here’s the link: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1931/jun/02/representation-of-the-people-no-2-bill#S5CV0253P0_19310602_HOC_298
Still, his argument seems to be based on the idea that those who give their first vote to unpopular candidates are idiots whose second preferences are likely to be eccentric and untrustworthy. Seems to me quite the opposite, that independently minded voters are the very soul of democracy.
+1
AV is too fucking complicated.
Numbers of voters are falling and AV won’t encourage people to take part in elections.
The research shoes. BNP voters second preference is Mr Bobbly.
So tenuous. If this is the best the ‘no’ vote has to offer then the ‘no’ vote will definitely be the populations second preference.
[Insert predictable 'then they'll probably win' joke here]
‘Research out today from the No to AV campaign suggests that in the region of 35 constituencies could have their outcomes determined by the second preferences of BNP voters. This is the unwelcome empowerment that the AV system brings to democracy.’
As a regular reader Mr Fawkes, I have the uncomfortable feeling that this would hardly be ‘unwelcome’ to the large proportion of posters here.
I hope you misrepresent us. I get the distinct feeling that it’ll be a long time before any of us vote in another ‘one-eyed mong’ of ANY political stripe. Playful banter, not Disablism.
Who cares? If people are stupid enough to vote for the BNP/Labour/Socialist Workers then they should a taste of what they deserve.
Don’t forget the crypto-marxist Greens. They are just as left wing as any you have mentioned and just as dangerous to prosperity and freedom.
Did he make this important speech before or after launching the highly successful Winston cigarette brand?
“A million surplus Maggies are willing to bear the yoke;
And a cigar is only a cigar, but a good Woman is a Smoke.”
Before the Car Insurance for sure
If the second preference votes of BNP supporters will make a significant difference won’t that mean that UKIP will have more of a chance?
I’m not saying UKIP are racist, merely that the kind of knuckle draggers who vote for the BNP may well see UKIP with it’s independance theme as being ‘the next nearest thing’ to thier first preference?
Dear John
I always thought the knuckle draggers voted Labour. In fact I KNOW knuckle draggers vote Labour!
Is this an argument against or in favour ?
My, my. Fawkes inviting comment on the party that shall otherwise remain nameless here.
I trust that you cleared it with the Equality & Human Rights Commission, Fawkes.
(Though a period of silence on the part of that motley rabble would be welcome, considering all the legal costs that they, or rather the taxpayers, are going to have to cough up following their latest failed witch-hunt).
Maybe report naughty Guido to that champion of equality (unless it relates to her family!) Harriet Harperson?
The narrater seems to have a foreign accent and a slight lisp
After the TUC march I’m beginning to wonder whether the BNP have been unfairly demonised. They haven’t attacked, invaded or vandalised the Labour Party headquarters. They haven’t trashed any public or private buildings as far as I know. I don’t think they walk about in balaclavas and attempt to maim police officers. They don’t set things on fire to prevent people going about their business on London’s streets. Compared to the military wing of the Labour Party they are the model of good behaviour.
Unlike the UAF nazi thugs!
Interesting, is it not, that there is such broad agreement that any electoral procedure that gives that party any kind of chance is ‘a bad thing’?
Rather than fiddling about with voting ‘systems’ why not put some time and effort into providing evidence that they are ‘a bad thing’?
+1
Amazing isn’t it how the Labour H.Q. never seems to be attacked by these idiots. I wonder why?
The TUC headquarters if also immune from attack.
So it seems we must be getting close to an election and this is part of the no campaign, it’s not the bbbbnnnppp I would be worried about it’s the trash that want it so they can stay in power, seeing that Liebour are playing the yes,no with the lovies saying yes ,I would have thought no was in the bag.
Nicked, Guido…
But your page got a hat tip.
Too important to keep to yourself… well done for finding that!
Ampers
Never did me any harm.
It would be terrible if Daveed had to listen to that loony Farage.
It would be deliciously delightful if rusty the warmonger had to listen to a real Conservative.
i think there is some confusion here, a vote for the BNP is not a vote for BNP policy, it is the only tool available for your average voter to protest against the piggery of the current political class
Currently there is no mechanism to protest against the bovine stupidity of the Balls couple
What a ridiculous thing to say. There are – sadly – plenty of people I’ve spoken to and heard from around my local constituency who voted BNP because they liked the sound of BNP ‘policies’
What are these ‘policies’ of which you speak?
If this was remotely true the BNP would be heavily campaigning for a yes vote. Strangely they are doing the exact opposite. I would love to see a decent argument from the no campaign because I could be persuaded but so far all I have seen is lies and dirty tricks that shows me there is no substance to the no campaign whatsoever.
They are campaigning for PR, AV is a stepping stone to PR according to Clegg.
And the guy quoted approvingly in your post prefaces those very comments saying that he is in favour of PR. Such are the inconveniences of arguing from Authority.
If you consider the truth to be lies and dirty tricks, you have a strange way of looking at things, because I have not seen a single argument in favour of AV which stands up to scrutiny.
Agreed Mr. Ned, as far as I can see AV will only result in the fifth rate being allowed to take over the asylum at every level, instead of the second and third rate as at present.
Under this AV you simply put the person who you want to fail as last preference. The rest will sort themselves out. You don’t necessarily vote for the winner but vote against the tits you don’t want at any price.
And under first past the post you don’t vote for them. Seems a lot less complicated don’t you think?
Agreed.
But you would be free to just write “1″ next to your favourite candidate and leave it at that. But it also gives you the freedom, so if I don’t want to vote for the BNP or the Tories, now at least I can rank the latter ahead of the former.
This is ultimately why I’ll be voting yes. AV gives voters more freedom to express their opinion and only if they choose to do so.
My post included a purple-edged plea from disgusting media luvvies wanting my vote.
It sealed my NO vote – they should eff off back to the hyperprivileged encampments from which they came!
As much as would loath to see those Pol Pot agrarianists hold sway, our democracy at present resembles an elected dictatorship where by millions of votes do not count & substantial swathes of the electorate are completely disenfranchised from any representain the house that they want.
Something has to change.
AV was a sop from the elite to try to pacify the feeling that our democrqacy is nothing but an epty sham – it has failed, PR is the only true & fair measure of an electorate – no matter which unmentionable they vote for.
And lets face it, Blair said at the beginning of his regume that they would be “radical” – they were not, they were extremist in their policies to disenfranchise the indigenous peoples of Britain – & now the bill for those policies of hate are coming home to roost.
Labour were & are just as extremist as their Nationasl Socialist cohorts led by NG.
+1
“PR is the only true & fair measure of an electorate” – that votes for parties rather than for candidates.
This is why our politics has become so corrupt. Most MPs are appointed without election by a party leadership who were appointed in the same way.
If you want democracy, educate the people and have those people decide which people they want to represent them. This is, of course, why all corrupt and despotic regimes destroy mass education. Pol Pot by killing everybody who wore spectacles. Snake Oil Blair by substituting ‘Qualifications x 3′ for ‘Education x3′.
OTOH, nobody really wants democracy because it involves the citizen taking responsibility.
Brilliant! Best April Fool I’ve seen today!
Guido if you cannot come up with a substantial argument based on true democracy, representation and fairness and can only resort to scare tactics it shows what basis there is in the no campaign, in which I have been hugely dissapointed. I wanted a good debate but all the no campaign can do is sling enough mud and hope enough sticks. Its very poor.
So the anti-AV propaganda has descended into utter Daily Star twaddle of the ‘Smartphones Cause Cancer’ variety.
Next up: “AV would cause house prices to plummet” – Daily Mail
“Are hurricanes linked to AV?” – Daily Express
“AV made my boobs shrink” – Heat
“AV is racist and unfair to women and minorities” The Guardian
Jordan gets her tits out – the Star
“AV is a miserable little reform” – Nick Clegg
When is the Yes campaign going to come out with ANYTHING in favour of changing to AV? I have not seen any rational argument from them that stands up to scrutiny.
Its of benefit to all small parties, who don’t get their potential voters (or even protest voters) worrying about a wasted vote. So one could re-write the above for:
Libdems
UKIP
Green
SNP/PC
English democrats
Flying hippies (I miss them).
(and even the big three (2.5?) in some constituencies where they’re a poor 3rd)
Monster Raving Loony Party?
SWP and Respect
SWP? I hadn’t even considered them for the list.
I had considered “elvis bus pass”
Respect and SWP are pretty intertwined and there are some inner urban areas where they could have an influence. The fact that they are as big a pack of arseholes as the BandP doesn’t unfortunately seem to attract the same disdain.
I wonder if we’re going could apply AV voting theory to Met Police/Newscorp dinners?
One dinner for the top brass, five for Andy Hayman…..
RUPERT SHIFTS SON OUT OF FIRING LINE, THROWS BROOKS & COULSON TO WOLVES – AS MET POLICE CAUGHT LYING ABOUT HAYMAN DINNERS….
http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/hackgate-day-77-rupert-moves-james-out-of-firing-line-prepares-to-throw-rebekah-to-wolves/
“It is intellectually dishonest of $1 to claim simultaneously that AV will empower $2 but not the $3″
Wasn’t Hitler elected under a very similar voting system in 1933?
So was Ed Miliband .
Baroness Warsi goes into a sex shop, and after wandering around for a bit, asks to see the vibrators.
The assistant says “Certainly madam, they’re over here in the corner”, and takes her to a display with a variety of dildos and sex toys. “You just have a look, and let me know when you’ve chosen one”.
So Baroness Warsi has a look, and quickly says “I’ll have that big red one at the end”.
But the sales assistant replies “I’m sorry madam, that’s our fire extinguisher !”.
Sorry about that. I haven’t had my first crack pipe this morning.
Mr Devine did find some sympathy in his former Livingston constituency from Danny Russell, vice-chairman of the Addiewell/Loganlea Community Council.
“I’m really disappointed. I feel that he was hung out to dry,” he said.
Mr Russell said the former MP attended the funeral of his wife Patricia four years ago. “He was a caring sort of bloke as I knew him,” he added.
“I feel he could have been given community service for the amounts that were involved. I reckon he was goaded on.”
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Final-downfall-of-workingclass-hero.6743942.jp
Well the money wasnt stolen from benifit scrongers was it , so scots think its ok.
the time is coming when all scots are guilty of everything and should all be hanged
Not to be a Yes to AV supporter at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.
Guido you are a tease, so according to you democracy can only be the type of democracy you deem fit, Ho Ho Ho.
Successive ping-pong Governments have failed to do anything other than rob the electorate of rights thrown the doors open to riff raff and scroungers allowed the country to be near bankrupted while helping themselves to taxpayers cash!
I have a rule that has served me well, if any Government of the day advise or demand do it this way you can bet your grannies pension you are better off doing the opposite!
Your type of Democracy…you are welcome to it!
I
And how, exactly, would changing to an even worse form of electoral process remedy the situation?
“Worse” is an objective supposition aka ping-pong argument.
I love the disproportional amount of hysteria that such a small Party as the BNP manages to create amongst all the people that I despise most in politics.
This is wonderful news and I shall now be voting ‘YES’.
+1
Get rid of the B&P, and suddenly all the problems associated with imposed diversity: Islam, white flight, no-go areas, inner city gangs etc. disappear over night apparently!
You mean you despise the BNP least of all the parties?
My position is that I hold all politicians in equal contempt.
The fact that anyone votes for the BNP is a damning indictment of the main political parties’ failure to represent the will of the people, not of the AV electoral system.
If the main parties want to keep the BNP out, then they shouldn’t make voters feel so alienated that they have no one else to turn to, not bitch about the fact that particular electoral system MIGHT allow them some representation!
On that basis anyone voting for the Nazis in the 1930s did so on the basis that the other parties – the Socialists, the Centre, the Communists etc – were not sufficiently anti-semitic. Strange idea.
Its immigration stupid.
Its the EU stupid.
Its the complete lack of any self determination for the indigenous peoples of Britain, stupid.
The Great thing about AV is that it gives the greatest influence to those with the most astute minds.
In the distant past Graduates used to have two votes, but this of course was elitist nonsense.
What AV does is to ensure that the third fourth and fifth preferences of the Raving Looney supporter carry an equal weight to the first preference vote of Conservative and Labour supporters. What could possibly make more sense than that?
And to make sure that the candidates are treated just as unfairly as the voters; the Candidate at the bottom loses his deposit because only his first preference votes were counted; the next candidate keeps his deposit because he has picked up some second preference votes, and the next one benefits from first second and third preference votes and does even better.
The downside to AV is that it will damage Foreign Relations, Increase public spending and Increase crime.
Why? You ask.
Because when the returning Officer reads out the results and it is realised that the third and fourth preferences of the Raving Loonies have outvoted the first preferences of the Conservative and Labour Supporters, the Observers from Zimbabwe will die of laughter and damage Foreign relations, the Returning Officer will be lynched, putting up crime figures, and the town hall will be burnt to the ground by an angry mob, thus increasing public spending.
Its Fucker democrcy , When people dont vote you want them Guido.
A better question is why do people want to vote for the B*P?
Because we shat all over our traditional
grotty pea-brained misogynist white working class scumsupporters.Is it because they’re racist and leftwing?
Is there a racist right-wing party they could vote for? Or are all racist parties left-wing in la-la land?
And isn’t it telling that Churchill uses the word “worthless” twice. In this instance the BNP candidate is worthless as are all their supporters; hell I don’t know why they even bother to stand or vote.
Yep no point having these worthless candidates and these worthless votes; why the hell should they be allowed a voice? They voted incorrectly and should just accept that.
Guido, I agree with you on most things but the BNP got 560,000 votes at the last election and if we truly have democracy, a party with half a million votes should be represented in parliament. If you don’t like the party, that’s not really relevant. The way you defeat a party in a democracy is to attack its arguments or (preferably in this case) deal with the issues that are causing people to vote for it in such numbers. Leaving the EU, making meaningful cuts to immigration and stopping tolerating the excesses of Islam (all things I know you would support) would kill the BNP stone dead. What you can’t do is use the fear of them being represented in parliament to keep an electoral system that discriminates unfairly against minor parties. That’s anti-democratic. It doesn’t just keep out the BNP either, it keeps out UKIP (910,000 votes at the last election) and it dissuades anyone who might think of founding a new, credible centre right party.
The biggest threat to democracy is 650 elected MPs and thousands of unelected Peers looking after their own interests instead of their ‘claimed’ interests of the country – makes voting of any sort a mockery and is a corruption of the notion of a free society
Don’t forget me!
PS: I want another £48million by lunchtime, or else
The good and inclusive aspect of AV is that it enfranchises BNP and UKIP MPs to fiddle their expenses as well.
Only filth lke Harman and the back-stabber Miliband want this AV crap. They will lose and we will laugh, loudly.
A good bunch a Thatcher children will then attack Harman and beat her to a pulp, humiliating her by chanting Thatcher slogans as we go. We will then slash her face with a Stanley knife.
I will then have a threesome with Kate Silverton and Emma Crosby. Julie Etchingham will be made to watch, the Lefty Leicester whore.
up until now , I have been non-plussed about AV , whoever wins then thats democrcy, But Guido, I fear with these tatics someof us who wouldnt have voted will vote but vote for AV , You cant mock something because it might give you a result you dont like , it also shows a lack of respect for voters .
To all the people who here quite rightly questioning Guido’s opposition to greater people power (even people you disagree with, shock! Maybe in seats where there isn’t a BNP candidates, we should check to see would have voted for them so we can stop these undesirables voting for their second preference?), the real truth is despite Guido claiming to be anti-establishment and for the truth, he is just an establishment dinosaur like all the rest.
He’s happy with a system that disregards the wishes of the people and removes politician from accountability as long as it gives his tribe a change of untrammeled power a good proportion of the time. He’s not averse to “spinning” his “facts” when it suits his agenda (JUST LIKE a politician).
That’s right Guido, you ARE just another John Prescott!
Dan Hannan mkes the point , tell people not to vote for them enough times and they say sod it and vote for them to spite you
Hannen is another bogus ‘Euro sceptic’. He exists to string the deluded party tribalists along that the Tory party is somehow Euro sceptic in nature, when the daily evidence is the complete opposite.
But dummy party tribalists willingly fool for it every time.
Listen to point he makes about the B8P and what happens if you keep telling people not to vote for them.
I will save the party…sometime…if I can cancel supper with Shami
Hannan is an EU sceptic, no Hannan is playing both ends with the middle, typical no note politician who likes to think he’s great, nothing here please move on.
what a load of shit that report is. there is no evidence, just a list of seat names. Also, they completly misrepresent how av works. You cannot take the majority and decide that if a minority candidate has more, then that changes the result. You still always have to get over 50% of the total vote.
Lets actually look at the first seat they reference.
For example, their first seat where ‘BNP votes could change the result under AV’, Amber Valley.
2010 result (as per electoral calculas, http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlist_a_b.html#AmberValley) or bbc http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/a04.stm
con – 38.6%, Lab 37.4%, lib 14.4%, minority (in this case BNP) 6.95%, other 2.55%
now maybe my maths is wrong, but even if all the BNP votes went to either of the big two (not in reality going to happen but lets run with it), this cannot make 50%, thus this example is bullshit (and this is the first one i looked at).
yet again, more smoke and mirrors from the no campaign. Or simply, lies.
Even better if the entire BNP and Other vote only voted for their party and no other, the percentage of the remaining vote still wouldn’t leave anyone with 50% or over.
I looked up 4 or 5 more. it was always the 3rd party that swung things.
Apart from perhaps Burnley.
So the real number is closer to 1. +/-1
Burnley is not one. results below
con 16.61 lab 31.34 LD 35.68 BNP 8.95, OTH 7.41
i would give them Dagenham and Rainham, as 1
I was being generous with Burnley. Esp as its famous for such things.
I’ve just looked up “ashfield”. another one that doesn’t count.
Pretty close, but actually the astonishingly close libdem vs labour race would have been decided by conservative 2nd votes.
have now checked down to Carlisle on the list
still no seat ‘BNP’ votes would send a candidate over 50%
now down to wakefield and have to stop for a bit. Still only one potential seat, Dagenham and Rainham.
the no2av campaign arem just liars, pure and simple
I find it slightly confusing that the Conservative party consider AV to be such a threat to their electoral prospects that them and their supporters are producing such obviously bullshit arguments over AV. Surely most of the remaining Lib Dems would 2nd preference the Conservatives and they’d gain almost every UKIP 2nd preference. It’s Labour that would probably lose out over AV at the moment because the only party likely to give them most of their second preferences is the green party, far less numerous than the parties mentioned above.
Absolute balls, Cameron’s conservatives are indistinguishable from either Labour or the Lib Dems.
There is not a hope in hell of them winning many if any, second preference votes from most UKIP voters, who in the main, despise all three main parties equally and view them all rightly, as treasonous liars.
However that is not the case with either Tory or Labour supporters who feel marginalised and ignored, they WILL second preference parties they feel more accurately speak for their real concerns and we all know which parties they are.
However that is not the case with either Tory or Labour supporters who feel marginalized….
And the number of marginalized is only likely to grow, as the three state parties continue to stick their fingers up at their core voter base.
Not been confirmed yet officially but reports say Gordon Brown’s been sectioned after an incident last night at a pub in Fife!!
That would be typical. He destroys Britain and receives no punishment whatsoever. He throws a glass at someone in a pub and he gets locked-up.
We know it’s April 1st, but to joke about that is disgusting, please stop getting our hopes up.
Bloody typical, still costing the taxpayer money!
Seems to be a new labour occupational hazard!
http://doctore.blog.is/users/b4/doctore/img/save_blair.jpg
As Scotland, Wales and NI have abolished prescription charges from today.
I want the millions this will cost us in England to be slashed from their NHS budgets or they have complete control over all their tax raising and spending.
It is simply not acceptable the current situation to continue.
Judging by the confusion being caused, AV will be the politicians’ dream.
‘Divide and rule’, that’s their motto. Can’t let the people choose what they want, you know.
Achtung! AV! AV! Achtung! Nein! Nein! . . . http://bit.ly/gRrPOV
BoJo was on top form last night on QT (no, not that kind of top form). Dy Anne Fatbutt was totally useless. Labour bottled sending a senior shadow minister after last week’s violent protests. Fatbutt and Mark Suckwotka made a dismal socialist double act.
“Fatbutt and Mark Suckwotka made a dismal socialist double act.”
Just like Dave and Nick
Nonetheless the usual QT audience lapped up the Trotskyist Suckwotka.
How true. Where does Mark Miseryguts think the money comes from to pay for all those public sector jobs. He has got to be one of the biggest twats ever to appear on QT.
Labour have made themselves look complete idiots over the cuts. I know it didn’t take much to do this, but even the most ardent leftie must be cringing.
As Boris said labour cuts must be nicer cuts than those of the coalition.
The trouble with labour is that lying has become ingrained in their make up. They cannot accept losing over one hundred seats, and they will not come out of denial.
Poor old Diane, she was so bad.
The same Diane that sent her son to private school.
Hypocrisy is ingrained in the left.
I want to vote UKIP.
I can’t vote UKIP, because I live in a Tory/LibDem Marginal, so I have to vote Tory.
The minority of labour voters probably vote LibDem to keep the Tory out, but might well sympathise with UKIP.
AV allows me to vote UKIP 1st and Tory 2nd, which reflects my true feelings.
It would let the labour voters choose Labour 1st, UKIP 2nd, LibDem 3rd. (Yes, I know its ridiculous, but labour voters aren’t that bright)
And why should B&P voters not be represented? You don’t have to agree with them to recognise that they have just as much right to representation as anyone else.
I live in a Tory marginal (Brighton Kemptown, Tory majority ~ 1,322) and that’s why – as a former Conservative Party member – I won’t be voting Tory. If Simon Kirby loses by 1 vote, I will have got rid of him. Dave’s faux-Cons, clinging on to government by the skin of their teeth, can’t afford to lose one single seat. But they will. I will help ensure it.
Dave’s faux-Cons don’t give a rat’s flying f*ck about the Con safe seats – why should they? The faux-Cons do have to worry about the marginals. They need to worry very much indeed.
The faux-Cons need to become Conservatives again, to reclaim the millions of voters driven away from the Party by pro-EU Dave, the traitor thief and liar. They won’t do that if they continue to take your support for granted.
Why?
Conservative policy is virtually identical to both Labour and Lib-Dem policy. If you read their manifesto’s without knowing which party they represented, most would be hard pressed to tell which was written by who.
The only thing that seperates the Coalition and Labour economic policy, is timing and amounts to be cut ( a 3% difference between either side ). Are you seriously suggesting that such a trivial difference, defines who out of the main three, who you vote for? As for virtually everything else, all three, are bloody identical.
I agree that there isn’t much to choose between Tory and Labour or LibDem economic policy.
I still live in hope that overall Tory policy will be marginally less idiotic than the other two.
Hence the tactical choice.
Also, Mike Handycock is the incumbent MP, so anything I can do to rid the HoC of his odious presence is my civic duty.
OK, clearly we’re all thick pricks who could possibly disagree with you, so we need to be led by the nose to the conclusions you’d like us to come to. I suppose thats called “political campaigning”.
From the analysis what numbers does one get for:
Under Alternative Vote the Green’s Voters Could Swing NN Seats
Under Alternative Vote the UKIP’s Voters Could Swing NN Seats
Under Alternative Vote the Libdems’s Voters Could Swing NN Seats
Under Alternative Vote the Conservative’s Voters Could Swing NN Seats
HAAHAHAHAHHAAHAHA Bollocks and liies.
One of the 35 is Lancaster & Fleetwood.
A very close run conservative v labour.
Conservative 15,404 36.1%
Labour 15,071 35.3%
So they need 15%
Liberal Democrat 8,167 19.1
Green 1,888 4.4
UK Independence Party 1,020 2.4
Brit sh Nat onal Party 938 2.2
Independent 213 0.5
Using the second preferences of those bottom three would mean that Con + labour would not have reached the 50% mark (as 36%+ 9.5% isnt).
So for the first of the 35 seats I look at it would indeed be the 2nd votes of the Libdems that swung the election.
does this mean that if we keep on voting the right party will get in in the end?
A number of posters here simply denigrate b n p voters, as is their right to comment, but without spending a little time considering and evaluating whether, given that they got 1 mill votes in the EU election and .5 mill in the last election, and in the face of the vitriol, lies and attempts to deny the legally constituted party a voice; how many more people would vote for them, are too frightened to vote for them, because of the thought police.
If the party has a new leader and becomes more savvy, as it is doing, dealing with the three main parties, who see its threat to them you will find their voting numbers going up substantially. Do some research amongst the people willing to put their heads above the parapet and you wil find that for every brave voter there are 80 timid ones.
have now checked the “list” in the report down to wakefield and have to stop for a bit. Still only one potential seat, Dagenham and Rainham, that BNP voters could directly push a candidate over 50%
the no2av campaign arem just liars, pure and simple
It ought to br remembered that Churchill, and Gladstone, were not too awfully fond of muslims, or that book. One assumes they were not too fond of immigration on an unlimited scale either.
Only three countries use AV and they all want rid of it.
Papua New Guinea uses a limited version of AV and whilst it may abandon it, it certainly won’t go back to FPTP.
There is actually little evidence that Australians don’t like AV, i’m sure where this keeps coming from. The major disatisfactions in Australia are the facts that you have to rank every single candidate on the ballot, something that’s not going to be done here, and the compulsory voting they have.
Fiji is getting rid of AV because it’s a military dictatorship. Not sure the military dictatorship’s opinion is much to go on.
And actually you are factually incorrect because almost every country in the world uses AV in some form or another. All the three parties in the UK use a round basis system for the election of their leaders. AV is used for mayoral elections in the UK, USA, Canada etc. (pretty much everywhere in fact). France uses a round based system for their general elections and presidential elections, except the run off isn’t instant but rather people go out and vote twice. Most professional associations and trade unions use AV for their leadership elections.
Yet another distortion by the no campaign that doesn’t actually stand up when faced with the facts.
I think a very good counter quote by Churchill to Guido’s one was Churchill’s opposition to FPTP said in 1909:
“The present system has clearly broken down. The results produced are not fair to any party, nor to any section of the community. In many cases they do not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities. All they secure is fluke representation, freak representation, capricious representation.”
The bottom line is AV may not be perfect (though the No to AV campaigns ‘research’ claims don’t stand up here), but FPTP is BY FAR the ABSOLUTE WORST system of voting.
Glad to see that Churchill can be quoted on both sides of this debate.
One of the other threats he saw to democracy was the introduction of female suffrage (admittedly after being targeted by suffragettes himself).
Churchill did a lot and said lot of witty things, some wise, some stupid. The Labour government of 1945 were going to need a Gestapo, remember? And the Gold Standard wasn’t exactly the nation’s greatest hour.
Please stop bleating on about Churchill. he was a great man, almost essential in 1940 but that doesn’t mean his views were infallible – even when he hadn’t contradicted himself!
I think perhaps there should be new version of Godwin’s law, where if you quote Churchill you lose, especially if you’re a tabloid or a conservative blogger. People often forget that Churchill switched his party alleigance twice and ran some of the most awful blunders in history, some of which you mentioned but also Gallipoli comes to mind. Similarly he was only stopped form launching a pointless and costly sea invasion of Malaysia and Singapore when Japan was just about to surrender at the end of WW2 by the British generals in that theatre.
But you DON’T have to put the BNP as your second vote or to put them anywhere on the ballot sheet, but if some moron actually thinks that the BNP are the second or third best party to lead the country, well isn’t that democracy.
AV ensures that tactical voting will become much more wide spread as voters start to realise that their vote might actually count, and it is this that the mainstream parties are shiting themselves about. The public feel mainstream politics is largely corrupt (a big hello to the expenses scandal), and the way MP’s have reacted to IPSA merely confirms they have learned nothing from it.
Democracy bringing empowerment? Good heavens, we can’t have that can we?
We should be careful what we wish for. Whatever opinion of the BNP we may have it is a legally constituted political party with an, albeit small, electoral base.
For example, by making it illegal, or forbidden, for police officers, teachers etc. to be members of the BNP, or to publicly hound a ballerina simply for being a member thereof, very dangerous precedents have been set.
None of us really know what the future holds but imagine a time when some party or other came to power and decided that Labour Party or Liberal Party or Conservative Party members, or any or all of them, could not be police officers, teachers etc., and then consider this perfectly logical response by the new power group to the howl of outrage that would arise from the new disenfranchised:
“The precedent is established. What you did unto others we shall do unto you. Tough.”
In politics what goes around has a nasty habit coming around, and when one sows dragon’s teeth one should be prepared for whatever surprises will spring up like summer corn.
100% correct, Tonyq
I think the ant-AV people actually fear people voting their actual beliefs.
In many, if not most, sets people who are against the incumbent try and guess which of he other parties to vote for (should I vote labour or libdem to defeat conservative, with very limited asnd inaccyrate data to go on).
If AV is introduced then people don’t have to guess, they can vote their true beliefs.
This is what the antis fear, they fear having UKIP or BNP or GReen winning seats.
If 50% of the people prefer Green or BNP, at present they don’t realise that they have a majority so vote labour or labour (for the example above) or don’t bother voting.
I suspect that AV would enliven politics and reduce the control of the party apparatchiks.
This wouldn’t have anything to do with them paying for ads on your site would it?
It’s about time we had a good block of BNP MPs.
It’s a legal and legitimate party whose views are held by many more people than will admit to it.
BNP MPs that’s great, and it’s just made my mind up I’ll now be voting for AV.
“the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates.” Churchill,
Guido – It seems that Cameron has cribbed the quotation you cribbed fron Chruchill. I wonder who he cribbed it from?
Letting people vote for who they really support could be a disaster. Who will look after the liblabcon wankstains if any whiff of democracy is permitted? Exploiters of the English might be forced to flee to Eire for sanctuary and that would just be cruel.
The trouble with citing Churchill in this context is that the people who vote BNP have as much right as anybody else to vote; and if I should be allowed a second preference so should they. I loathe the BNP as much as anyone on this blog, but I don’t adopt the attitude that “the end justifies the means” so that anything which marginalises them and their voters is automatically good.
The BNP have to be defeated by debate – and the collapse in their share of the vote where they put up a candidate last year is an excellent sign – not by electoral shenanigans.
I take it you’re referring to Barking & Dagenham last year. Didn’t know any debate took place – just Billy Bragg strutting round as if he owned the place with his chums loitering menacingly in the background.
No, that was rubbish. “Barking” mad. I mean whatever debate it was among people (perhaps inside the heads of individuals) that led to them doing so badly compared with 2005. Of course they got more votes; they put up more candidates. But their share in those seats where they stood collapsed.
Now, Reimer, will you or anybody else be so elitist as to say that it’s all right for you and me to say where our votes should go if our chosen candidate fails, but not for their voters?
BWoo, Ha ha so much for liberal intellects opening the door to those who they hate most.
http://www.reverbnation.com/mgctm1