To AV or not to AV? That is the question

The recent Parliamentary Voting System Bill provides for a referendum on whether to change our parliamentary electoral system from First Past the Post to the Alternative Vote or AV.

AV sees electors rank candidates in order of preference. At an extra cost of £250-million, preferences are shuffled between candidates until a 'winner' emerges.

Some claim this is a fairer or more proportional way of determining an election. It is neither.

One of the results of this complicated process is that those voting for fringe parties such as the BNP may have their votes counted several times over — if you voted for one of the main parties you will probably have your vote only counted once. What is fair about a BNP supporter having their vote counted several times and say a Lib Dem voter just once?

AV can also be far less proportional than our current system and would have led to more exaggerated disproportionality between votes cast and seats secured in a number of previous elections, including in 1997 and the 1980s when Tony Blair's and Margaret Thatcher's majorities would have been even greater.

Roy Jenkins former leader of the Lib Dems in the Lords said: 'On its own AV would be unacceptable because of the danger . . . it might increase rather than reduce disporportionality.'

So if you support Proportional Representation I am afraid you will find just the opposite in AV.

If AV was a good system you might expect that many other countries would use it. Worldwide there are three: Australia, Fiji and Papua New Guinea. In Australia a majority want to get rid of it – but they will probably have to suffer it for years – for when did the views of the majority ever matter under AV?