To AV or to hold?

ON THURSDAY Oldham will go to the polls to cast their vital votes in the first local election since the coalition came to power.

This time they will also face the prospect on deciding whether to give their support to voting reform in a national referendum.

If supported, the introduction of the alternative vote (AV) would be one of the biggest shake-ups ever seen in British politics, that has long favoured the tried and tested method of the First Past the Post system.

It’s an issue that has seen vigorous campaigners align on each side of the debate, including two of Oldham’s Labour MPs.

Here Oldham West and Royton MP Michael Meacher explains why he’s backing the Yes campaign, while David Heyes MP, whose constituency includes Failsworth and Hollinwood, is firmly arguing No.


How it works

Instead of marking the ballot paper with an X, under AV voters can rate candidates in order of preference by placing numbers next to the names for example 1 for first choice, 2 for second preference and so on.



Sweeping changes would also be enforced into the counting procedure.

If one candidate does not receive over 50 per cent of the vote, the last place candidate drops out and their second preference votes are redistributed.

The process continues until majority support is won by one candidate.

Yes campaigners argue that in this way greater power is given to voters, MPs become more accountable and it stops votes being wasted.




AV builds bridges to other parties



Reasons to support AV



VOTING patterns have undergone huge changes over the last half century.

The big parties won 95 per cent of the vote in 1945, now it’s only 65 per cent.

MP Michael Meacher said: “First Past The Post delivers a monolith — Thatcher with a 145-seat majority, Blair with 180, both on a minority of votes.

“Neither subject was in power to democratic accountability.

“AV at least opens up Britain’s hermetically sealed party tribalism, building not barriers but bridges to other parties.”

More encouragement is seen to be given to supporters of small parties under AV, with the thought that voters are more likely to back them, safe in the knowledge that their other preferences may also be counted.

Labour leader Ed Miliband has given his endorsement to the Yes campaign, as well as Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

Nationally support has been pledged by the Green Party and UKIP, while proportional voting systems have already been adopted for the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament.

The North-West branch of the Yes campaign has singled out the tendency for extremist parties to gain support during low turnout elections under the current system.

John Ault, North-West campaign organiser, said “The BNP are campaigning for a No vote as they realise that under AV extremists like them will not be able to get elected. May 5th gives the voters of the Oldham the chance to end extremist politics for good.”

Michael Meacher also argues that the Alternative Vote has been besmirched by No campaigners.

He thinks that AV will not cost more to use.

He added: “AV, it is claimed, will produce endless coalitions which the electorate never voted for.

“Actually a re-run of general elections over the last 30 years shows that it would have produced a coalition on just one occasion — last year when there was a coalition produced by First Past The Post.

“This kind of wilful deceit is contemptible, not least because it ignores the wind of change blowing strongly through British politics.”




It can’t be right a loser can win



Reasons to reject AV



Labour MP David Heyes said that it can’t be right that the person who comes second or third can overtake the person with the most votes.

“Under AV the votes of the least popular candidate can decide who wins the election. This could mean that the second, third or even lower choices of supporters of extremist parties are counted again and again.”

A recent poll showed that 58 per cent are currently backing the No vote, while the remaining 42 per cent are in favour of change at this moment in time.

The implications of a rejection would mean no change and the retention of the First Past The Post voting system that works on the simple formula that the candidate with the most votes wins the seat in each constituency.

Renowned for its simplicity, voters understand the system and votes cast are quick to count.

David Heyes has his own reasons for his plans to vote No.

He said: “AV is expensive to run, this referendum alone will cost £91 million.

“Then there’s another £130 million for the electronic vote counting machines needed to make AV work.

“At a time when people’s jobs and pensions are threatened is changing the way we vote really a priority for spending?

“First Past the Post has served this country well. It creates strong accountable governments and means that coalitions are less common with no horse-trading behind the scenes.

“That’s why I’ll be urging my constituents to vote No in the referendum on May 5.”

He says the Liberal Democrats are supporting the campaign as it would give them more seats and a greater power to influence future coalitions.

Former Labour party chair and Salford MP Hazel Blears launched the North-West No to AV campaign in Manchester.